Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem

Moats, mortgages and mayhem ?

It would be more enlightening to report on the New Labour saga - Spin, Smear, Stealth Tax, Survival and Shambles.

Nick,
With all the media headlining endlessy on the demise of Michael Jackson, could you please check what bad news the Government has decided to bury today?
Has Gordon finally admitted he has led the country into a deep depression?

Warning over Commons reform plans

Warning over Commons reform plans


These plans are a Joke they do not go anywhere near what any other person in this country as to pay who defrauds the tax payer

MP's setting another set of easy rules for them selves


https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8121539.stm

New laws target rule-breaking MPs

These plans are a Joke they do not go anywhere near what any other person in this country as to pay who defrauds the tax payer

MP's setting another set of easy rules for them selves


https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114546.stm

hi Nick,

moats, mortgages and mayhem

it's the middle one that most people are fascinated by ... in particular, the use of same by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition

@ 6

why are we not allowed to discuss mortgages and opposition leaders when it's bang on topic?

Nick,

If you are going to mention this specific newspapers editors spat with a Conservative, then I would expect you to mention that Mr Lewis brother is now Gordon Browns new Media spinmeister, your omission of this fact makes your article very biased.

This is especially true when you have not published negative articles about Labour MP's in other newspapers which are just as valid as this specific storm in a teacup, why is that?.

Have you not learnt anything from the cries of bias you faced after McBride was forced out?.

#2.... notsosilentmajority...#8 Rustigjongens..and others...

ARRRRRGH!!!

NO NO NO. NO MORE 'DEAR NICKS'.

While I am on the subject no more 'we the people' rubbish either. It's getting worse than that exasperating phrase 'at the end of the day'.

Leave them be. Enough please.

9. ReginaldJeeves wrote at 9
"#2.... notsosilentmajority...#8 Rustigjongens..and others...
ARRRRRGH!!!
NO NO NO. NO MORE 'DEAR NICKS'.
While I am on the subject no more 'we the people' rubbish either. It's getting worse than that exasperating phrase 'at the end of the day'.
Leave them be. Enough please."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Reginald...
At the end of the day, we the people say you can take or leave it but we say what we want to say. This is Nick Ronbinson's blog..and if we want to respond to his comments by prefacing our views "Dear Nick" that is entirely our choice! OK

I'm really hoping this program will kick the @?{"£$ out of & into the
Telegraph & The London based News Media in general, for the way the expenses issues have been put out.
I'm a very average member of the UK public with no personal connection to Politicians or the News Media.
I want the Politicians treated with respect & honesty, even when something has been done wrong.
I want a News Media intent on strengthening & improving Government. NOT 'Feeding' on sensation & glorying in the amount of damage 'They' can do.
The Rats at The Top Of The Telegraph are guilty of Treason (Yes really.!)@@@@

10. At 8:15pm on 26 Jun 2009, notsosilentmajority wrote:
9. ReginaldJeeves wrote at 9
"#2.... notsosilentmajority...#8 Rustigjongens..and others...
ARRRRRGH!!!
NO NO NO. NO MORE 'DEAR NICKS'.
While I am on the subject no more 'we the people' rubbish either. It's getting worse than that exasperating phrase 'at the end of the day'.
Leave them be. Enough please."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Reginald...
At the end of the day, we the people say you can take or leave it but we say what we want to say. This is Nick Ronbinson's blog..and if we want to respond to his comments by prefacing our views "Dear Nick" that is entirely our choice! OK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said

I must say though at least comments get published on Nicks blog. Over on HYS it ias getting stupid and hardly worth bothering with, you comment on threads that don't get updated for 6 odd hours ( as Jacko appears the most important subject in the world..well according to the BBC ) and when a comment does get published it is thrown in with about 500 others in one drop then the thread is closed

10. At 8:15pm on 26 Jun 2009, notsosilentmajority wrote:

"Dear Reginald...
At the end of the day, we the people say ...."

>HA! Trapped. I was waiting for that one.

12. At 8:32pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld wrote:

"Well said"

>And you're even worse.

Although I do agree with you about HYS.

13. At 8:50pm on 26 Jun 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
10. At 8:15pm on 26 Jun 2009, notsosilentmajority wrote:

"Dear Reginald...
At the end of the day, we the people say ...."

>HA! Trapped. I was waiting for that one.

12. At 8:32pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld wrote:

"Well said"

>And you're even worse.

Although I do agree with you about HYS.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL

newmouse wrote at 11:
"I want the Politicians treated with respect & honesty, even when something has been done wrong....The Rats at The Top Of The Telegraph are guilty of Treason (Yes really.!)"
-------------------------------------------
1) Why should we respect MP's who disrespect their employers (us) by stealing and who are not at all honest?
2) Without the Telegraph we wouldn't have known about the fraudulent claims for non-existant mortgages etc. The Telegraph performed a public service
3) Who has taken over the running of Derek Draper's clones?

Dear Nick

We the people are pleased to hear about your radio programme - it sounds interesting.

Meanwhile has Gordon told any more lies today or has his deputy Lord Mandy issued fresh instructions. With 15% of the electorate behind him can Gobro survive another year?

14. At 9:16pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld:-

LOL???

(L)oads (O)f (L)efties?

(L)ove y(O)ur (L)etters Regie?

(L)ove w(O)t you (L)iteracate?

16. At 9:38pm on 26 Jun 2009, kcband8 wrote:

"Dear Nick

We the people are pleased to hear about your radio programme - it sounds interesting."

-----------------------------------------------

Dear Nick,

I the person do say: "Unlike the above comment."

Nick,
Looking forward to hearing your programme.I am sure it will be informative,interesting,stimulating and in keeping with the very high standards that I have come to expect from you and your colleagues.John Cole would have been proud of you.

19. At 10:13pm on 26 Jun 2009, braveSouter wrote:

"Nick,
Looking forward to hearing your programme.I am sure it will be informative,interesting,stimulating and in keeping with the very high standards that I have come to expect from you and your colleagues.John Cole would have been proud of you."

-----------------------------------------------

Well, I suppose 'Nick,' was the least disdainful part of your comment.

Thank you, sir.

Nick Dear*

Your programme will be a welcome relief from hours of uninterrupted Whacko Jacko.
I see you only come out on a Friday evening for a self-promotional plug. Shameless!

*Is that better RJ?

21. At 10:48pm on 26 Jun 2009, TheBlameGame wrote:

"Nick Dear*

Your programme will be a welcome relief from hours of uninterrupted Whacko Jacko.
I see you only come out on a Friday evening for a self-promotional plug. Shameless!

*Is that better RJ?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha ha! Excellent! Can't criticise that...Although perhaps you could stretch yourself to a 'My beloved Nick'? So much more...err...classical?

Regards

Regie.

17. At 9:41pm on 26 Jun 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
14. At 9:16pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld:-

LOL???

(L)oads (O)f (L)efties?

(L)ove y(O)ur (L)etters Regie?

(L)ove w(O)t you (L)iteracate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And after briefly dipping his toes in the waters of reason, Reginald retires to frolic on insanity beach.

Please can someone tell me what Nick's lates blog is about.

Surely it isnt just a watch my space its gonna be good ?

What exactly is the "topic" ?

23. At 11:47pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld wrote:

"And after briefly dipping his toes in the waters of reason,"

>Thank you, sir, for accepting my points of view,

"Reginald retires to frolic on insanity beach."

>OLO

xtunbridge, it appears to be an advert, an advert that appears to be for a show which knocks the Telegraph( God bless its little cotton socks!)and Michael Howard all in one go and reiterates moats and duck houses but fails to mention the odd mortgage (re-paid but forgotten and still claimed from we the people)or indeed a shed load of other trifles!

However, I suppose it will be better than yesterdays coverage of the tragic death of an icon - I am still wondering what happened yesterday which the media saw fit not to tell we the people!
It is difficult to imagine that the BBC found it necessary to Princess Diana a pop singer , albeit a strangely talented one, to such an extent that it was first in the news all day.There were people interviewed that should have been slapped about to stop their hysteria.

I suspect , in due course , the fullness of time , and in the long run , we the people will find out what else happenend yesterday.

Meanwhile , Mr Robinson will continue to advertise his appearances on this blog.

You might mean that when Andrew Pearce (Porter? I forget his surname) the journalist responsible for the Telegraph revelations had a spat with Michael Howard on the Daily Politics show a couple of weeks ago.

Andrew P. said that Michael Howard used his expenses to fund some part of the Conservative Party - I think that's the gist of it but cannot fully remember.

Michael Howard was irate and turned on him. Apparently outside, afterwards, Andrew P. stormed off saying "Politicians, they're all the same!!!!".



Whatever it is, Labour were well down in the Court of Public Opinion months before the expenses / allowances debacle. The whistle blowing merely compounded it for Labour.

Michael Howard, I actually admire. He was brave enough to fight on the basis of "Immigration, Immigration, Immigration" and was branded a racist because of it. He was ahead of his time and because of the failings of this abysmal shower in power there is a real likelihood of the BNP getting into Westminster.

That is, of course, if the Conservatives can be strong enough to say what millions of us want them to say, that they will actually strictly curb and ration those coming into our country and clean up the slums already caused by those from vastly different countries coming here destroying our communities and culture - and commiting crime.

Dear Nick

It is really good to see the BIG issues discussed. Let us say nothing about Benn agreeing with Dave about spending cuts or the big none shake-up at ministies and the abolition of targets. It looks like Crash has got it wrong again.

Nick, what will you be doing after the next election? Is there a position for you at the Graduian? I bet you glad that NuLiebour are hanging on.

1, Wilfred Pickles:

Ditto to that and

I would add to your alliteration:

Social unrest

does the hard working honest people of this country realy believe that mp's will bring about reform of their expenses etc without grumbles and gripes?.
no they introduce a higher pay rise to please themselves and in the process raise taxation for every one else yet again.
our latest crop of parlimentarians seem to be more akin to twisted robin hoods you know robbing the poorer sectors to help fund the extras they expect.
sadly we the voters have been hoodwinked by smooth talking smarm merchants who know how to manipulate the media.
sack the lot and have real change in this country.

Nick,

I will not be listening to your prog with Micheal Howard, as I am not interested in MPs excuses any more - on any of their failures, and there are now many. And attacking the Telegraph is not valid at all, because all our MPs had to do, and this would have cost the Telegraph dearly, is to have published the data that the paper had before it could release it. Failure to do this was typical of people who know they are guilty of deceit and just hope they are not the ones discovered.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

12. At 8:32pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld wrote:

I must say though at least comments get published on Nicks blog. Over on HYS it ias getting stupid and hardly worth bothering with, you comment on threads that don't get updated for 6 odd hours ( as Jacko appears the most important subject in the world..well according to the BBC ) and when a comment does get published it is thrown in with about 500 others in one drop then the thread is closed

I agree entirely. I don't post on HYS now because it's pointless (and pretty dumb). There's always a well-informed debate on this blog - most posters here can string an argument together. It's a much more grown-up way of moderating and, most importantly, investigating the subject under discussion. My attention has been drawn to things and once or twice my opinion changed by what I've read on these blogs, so well done somebody.

Nick

About six weeks ago I happened to be passing by a Tesco Metro store in a busy urban shopping centre when a scuffle ensued right against me and I was quite taken aback.

A middle aged woman was being dragged along the floor by two men and no, this was not the latest incompetent act by 'laughing Jack' Straw's justice department fiasco, this was a person alleged to be a shoplifter, being 'arrested' by two of Tesco's security guards.

The security guards were trying to get the woman back into the store who repeatedly protested her innocence saying and crying that she had 'done nothing' and instead of using the minimum of restraint and holding her until the police could be called, the security guards tried to drag her towards the entrance to the store (with great difficulty because she put on a ferocious struggle). By now quite a crowd had gathered and just as I approached to say something about the way the woman was being treated another woman intervened and spoke to the 'suspect' and also told the security gaurds to stop man-handling her.

I have thought about this many time since and the 'suspect' was lightly dressed without a carrier bag and I wonder what could she have possibly done to have received such an assault - had she stolen anything - a few quids worth of something? Who knows?

But when I think of this and the MP's sleaze museum and House of Lords sleazers who get suspended for six months I think that it is not only has Howard lost it we all have lost our sense of justice, proportion, right and wrong and much more.

Theft is theft but bent MP's and House of Lords offenders who behave badly are treated differently and not as common criminals who are assaulted and dragged around on the floor by Tesco's thugs. Nazi war criminals at the end of WW2 were treated better than this.

The problem with Howards and others is that they have spent too long lying face down in the trough in this in this cuckoo artificial circus we call parliament - they and other elitist goons need TO GET IT - a dose of reality.

What I think we need is a list of those bad MP's and House of Lords bent bungsters, senior civil servants, useless judges and BBC /quango wasters who need to get it - the sack, finito, jail whatever is coming to them and this is now overdue - the whole railway load of them and send them all to job seekers allowance and criminal charges and raid their bank accounts and assets and get some money back.

It's our sense of justice that is wrong - the scales of justice are broken and we need new laws and to kick out 'laughing. let 'em out Jack Straw', useless Keith Vaz and the whole government 'goonshow'.

Until this is done - they will just not get it!

The Telegraph Newspaper has done the public a great service in further exposing this criminality - theft is theft - unless it seems, you're a member of the Sleaze Museums.

As well as investigations/prosecutions for morally corrupt politicians etc when are we going to try Tony Blair and George Bush for war crimes? This was the biggest and most dangerous con as so many people have lost their lives because of it.

My comment 32 was removed.
All I did was question the validty of Nick's story. I suggested that the hush hush removal of McNulty would be a more interesting piece for Nick to blog.

Unfortunately for Michael Howard, when Tory leader, he 'lost it' from the minute that Alastair Campbell decided to put out posters depicting Howard as 'Shylock the Jew'.

Politics can be an amazingly low and brutal game as that incident clearly showed.

An extremely distasteful episode indeed, but similar are bound to occur again.

That appears to be part of the nature of the political beast.

34 nautonier

The way shoplifting is treated has long annoyed me.

It is theft. But it gets a police reaction far in excess of its worth. How many times have you been in the supermarket when the car/van with two coppers turn up to take away an alleged shoplifter. They turn up minutes after the call coz its a nice easy pinch and thats them off the road for a few hours. Try getting one to respond to a burglary as quick.

Also the alarms at shop doorways are a nightmare. The strips in library books set many of them off. I await being rugby tackled for having a library book with me.

You also raise the issue of reasonable force and I have no idea who the shop security people are answerable to.

The shops around here are all linked to a police radio system and they are on in the shops and you can hear what may be a completely innocent person(s) being described in every detail and where they are now just because someone thinks they might be a shoplifter. This must be against some law.

But our MP's are well one law for them......

Excellent. Good to see a liberal scattering of 'Dear Nicks,'.

------------------------------------------------------------

23. At 11:47pm on 26 Jun 2009, ghostworld wrote:

"And after briefly dipping his toes in the waters of reason, Reginald retires to frolic on insanity beach."

Rather a beach of insanity than drowning in your sea of reason.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Dearest Nick,

The BBC employs far too many women.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Tadcaster, mine and your comments moofed by the mods.

They both mention McNulty and there is a police investigation going on about him at present so I guess the sensitive BBC got funny about it.

Shame they don't get sensitive over Jonathan Ross and the other foul mouthed overpaid staff they have there, isn't it?

38. At 1:54pm on 27 Jun 2009, xTunbridge wrote:

34 nautonier

The way shoplifting is treated has long annoyed me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes - I fully agree - It also goes to show that the 'scales of justice' cliche is a load of nonsense - we also now have legislation allowing bailiffs to break and enter to recover assets after we've all been bombarded with offers to get into debt - brought in by this current corrupt government - the government, judiciary all 'sucks up' to big business - no wonder that so many MP's have second, third, fourth and even fifth and further 'jobs' and we're expected that because of their MP status - the favours, honours, passports, mortgages and cash does not, in any way, affect their 'honourable' judgement.

Yet another honorable menmber leaves for "family" reasons and other challenges
Why not leave now and let one of the unemployed have a job NOW !

After listening to the passionate speeches on the amendments to the Iraq enquiry, and then the resultant votes it is small wonder that voter apathy exists. There were some good speakers listened to by 30 to 40 MPs
Where were those that voted, did they bother to listen to any of the arguments, or were they all checking expenses forms under party orders
This is supposed to be Democracy in action ???

It seems that anyone mentioning that (New Labour) swear word, 'Imigrants', is pulverised for refering to the unmentionable.
That was why Michael HOWARD was castigated. Why is this a non-subject? I believe that it is a fabrication to beat any opposition.
Any other supporters? Mentioned at No.27.

#45

Why is immigration a non subject? Because Nulabour likes it that way!
They have been following for years a sinister agenda of social engineering,
hoping to create their politically correct nirvana of multiculterism.The
history,culture and heritage of this country must be destroyed for them to
reach their goal.Hence people voted BNP in despair and desperation.Just one
more reason why Nulabour needs to be booted out.Then we need a proper and
reasoned debate on immigration.

Can we please move on from MPs expenses. It's just getting so boring. The subject has been done to death on here!

#46 jbjannieb

I am unaware of your country. I didn't think that anywhere on this earth had remained "ethinically and culturally" pure since the dawn of humanity!

Personally, I rather like the mongrel nation of Scotland which has formed itself out of the disparate group of humans who have wandered into this part of the world over the millenia, and decided to stay. All of them have added to our "history, culture and heritage".

Scotland's not unique, in that, of course. It's the normal human condition. Where on earth (or elsewhere) do you live?

#49 oldnat: I agree totally! Ethnic diversity is the usual human condition, especially in healthy societies. Nationalism based on a cultural ideal may be a good thing, or not. But nationalism based on a concept of ethnic purity, or perceived ancestry, is usually based upon a falsehood. And, the most mongrel of all the British nations, even before the new commonwealth immigration, was England. The genes prove it. Look at the following, unusually rational, article from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatresources/4201967/So-you-think-youre-English.html

However, isn't it strange that so-called patriotic, (ie anti-foreign) sentiment in the UK is usually stirred up by press barons who are either tax-exiles, or who have swapped their own citizenship for commercial reasons?

That isn't to say that a society shouldn't have a rational debate about immigration. There are costs and benefits: Countries with a welfare state need to protect their finances - less of a problem in the US obviously. Too much immigration too quick can and does damage social cohesion. The effects can last for generations: you only need to look at the Celtic-Rangers divide! Something similar is/was there in most English industrial cities too: you only needed to look at the apartheid between the brown/purple school uniforms and the rest!

#49 sashaclarkson

I share your concern about the commercially driven xenophobic strategies that are obvious in both the UK and Scottish media.

There are clear differences between the demographics of England (at least in the South East) and Scotland (though possibly not in the Lothians). Different strategies for different circumstances would seem appropriate.

I don't really understand why the Unionist Parties prefer to determine these policies for the whole of the UK, on the basis of the demographics of those parts of England with highly concentrated populations.

#49 sashaclarkson

The sectarian divide in Scotland is not what it was.

There was a real problem with the RC population in Scotland being prosyletised by the Presbyterian majority in the 19th century. The 1918 Act, which absorbed the Catholic schools into the state system, protected the largely Irish immigrant community throughout the reprehensible Presbyterian domination in the 1920s and 30s.

Recent research that I conducted in formerly sectarian communities in the West of Scotland, suggested that increasingly the factors involved in selecting a non-denominational or RC Primary school were related to geographic location/ academic reputation etc rather than sectarian thinking.

43 shamus7

"Yet another honorable menmber leaves for "family" reasons and other challenges
Why not leave now and let one of the unemployed have a job NOW !"
=====================================================================

And not just any honorable member, it's not that long ago that Alan Milburn was being mentioned as a possible future Labour leader, possibly even PM.

#51, 52 oldnat

Middlesbrough, where I grew up, had a very strong sectarian divide, similar to the Scots one. One sometimes had friends across it, but any hint of "courting" across it and the priest would come knocking at the door - possibly both doors! Now there is a different divide, amounting to a voluntary apartheid, but which manifests itself less in the education system - though - I wonder how many muslims go to RC schools?

I am fortunate to live in Pembrokeshire now, where there is no segregated secondary schooling at all. There is a bit in the primary schools, but the real problem here is that in some places they are ALL denominational. Recently a friends seven year old was marched to the local church to hear some (Anglican) vicar lecture the class about Jesus being nailed to the cross. A number of the kids (and parents) were rather upset.

By the way, what proportion of Scotland's population live in the Lothian? Maybe it should rejoin the North East of England in a reformed kingdom/republic of Northumbria? There's lots in common! ;-)

I am pleased to hear sectarianism has lessened in Scotland.

Ten years ago I , with four colleagues from the English midlands, attended a funeral in Glasgow for one of our colleagues who went into a local hospital for minor surgery and came out dead.

After an excesllent pre-wake on the Friday in Glasgow city centre we got in a taxi and asked for the catholic church the funeral was at. Taxi driver had never heard of it. Still he took the fare and headed for the area, Caslemilk, and asked along the way. Nobody knew it.

We stopped again to ask and one of our number said "we are here" . We all looked at him as though he was mad and he just pointed to the graffiti on the wall inviting anyone to inflict sexual relations on the Pope. The church incidentally didnt look like a church from the outside, protection?

And I was told that Castlemilk is about ten points up the civilisation scale from say Govan. Other memory that sticks was that you didnt have to look to cross the roads in the outer suburbs. No cars!!!!!

Why doe the headline mention moat since the people didn't actually pay for it?

Like the duck house that wasn't paid for either. Or all those tennis courts and swinning pools that the bbc told me the tories had built on expenses.

P-Richard Robinson just can't help himself.

On the army point. What do you expect. A load of extreme unionists watching a militaristic demonstrationchoose to have a go at their real enemy. A Celtic supporting labour catholic. Serves him right.

Stuff the army.

Nobody hase defewnded anybodies rights and freedoms since the Falklands and every one of them who invaded Iraq should be on trial as a criminal. Like the brave wermacht who defended adolf's rights and freedoms by occupying most of Europe.

They made their choice. That was thair freedom. They were wrong. Don't try and force me to praise or support the pondsum in any way.

(TB why can't you use the word scum? It has plenty of non insulting uses. P-poor censorship.)

Ah, just twigged it. Lewis, Daily Telegraph, is the brother of Brown's new henchman.

Neopotism or what? Say no more.

Politics is a really dirty, dishonourable business at present isn't it?

Time for a change - get the party in who were born to be in power.

Not this power shower.

(NB distinctly underimpressed and unwhelmed by Balls, his feeble attempts and his mockney accent - jeeeeeesh! as Labour's paid blogger from the United States would say, whilst playing Duke Nukem).

Election in October - the only solution.

I am astounded that the

Parliamentary expenses issue is still running as it is
That we have also spent so much time and still do on Fred Goodwin
We want to write reams on Prince Charles 3 million expenses

Do not get me wrong the issues have an importance that need addressing

The first is a moral and ethical mess that needs stopping and will be the electorate will see to it thanks to the media but enough
The second is a stable door its gone as have many others of his colleagues hundreds of millions that have gone unnoticed.
The third is money that went to other people not Charles like security and airlines and hotels and aids so that he could represent and promote the value of this country abroad bringing in trade and tourism worth billions to all of us

But all three even when added together are after all small beef by comparison to the daily spend in our name and from our taxes they are diversions from the big issues

Bertrand Russell wrote
Every system should allow
loopholes and exceptions, for
if it does not it will in the end
crush all that is best in man

While we are fiddling and blowing of our steam on these matters the real big issues are being ignored and being kept from our view and off our front pages

The truly dodgy Expenses of the Politicians are at the end of the day less than the money we are paying the new chief executive of the Royal Bank and that money will be in a Swiss bank account faster than you can say duck house at least buying a duck house gave work to a trades man, a timber supplier, an iron monger and fro rent in his work shop so the economy got it back. Most of the money the bankers make finishes up in the Caiman Islands or elsewhere in foreign purchases and investments

Yes lets put right what is wrong but can we get back to the big issues the things that are costing our economy billions every year not the petty cash

What are the politicians doing for the nation why cant we have proper fully attend debates in parliament every week if the MPs dont want to use the space to debate the key issues perhaps concerned citizens could be given access to discuss matters every week but absolutely no one who has not voted at the last elections national local and European.

But perhaps the press and TV think we cant handle big numbers they are being as condescending as the politicians are to the public
There are key issues in public sector spending in health in education in policing and housing.

But will someone please look at the statistics government produce we are manipulating the figures to sustain a false position for this inept government of incompetence.

Can someone please tell me why social services departments are trying to remove ten percent of the child abuse cases of their files? Following recent trials like Baby P I thought they would want to ensure they had as many cases as people could possibly genuinely report.

Just one example come on News Hounds get after the real stories and the big social economic issues that make a difference to us all.

In short stop serving your own interests and start serving the community interest you never know they may just start to read the papers and watch the news again even some may start to vote with conviction.

Interesting programme. Your coverage would have been better if:-

(1) you explained the difference between "allowances" and "expenses", and quizzed MPs as to why an ALLOWANCE for a second home reasonably needed close to Westminster should be claimed as EXPENSES for all sorts on unrelated locations;

(2) you had explained how capital gains tax works in relation to everyone with more than one home, MPs being no different, and that it can not be avoided; all you can do is choose to which home it applies.

My complaint about MP's expenses is not that they are on the fiddle but they lack the competence to organise a simple and effective system in which they are treated the same as everyone else. If they can not cope with this trivial task what hope is there that they are any good at coping with more demanding legislative responsibilities?

Dear Nick Robinson,

Your "Moats etc" programme had many good qualities, but I was disturbed and concerned - enough to go to the trouble of registering to send you this -to hear that someone in your role was surprised to discover that the British people had an inate understanding what was fair and what was not in the MPs claims. Of course it is not dependent on the amount!!

I know nothing of your background, but I suggest you think hard about that coming as a surprise to you - as you clearly admitted at least - and set yourself some new goals in personal development. If I was your BBC boss I would be asking you to reflect very hard.

M H Davies

hack-round 58

I agree none of the political parties want to address the real issues as it would be unpopular with the electorate. Even Vince Cable this morning for me was unconvincing with vague ideas about public finance cuts. He then went on to talk about tax cuts, but did not address how these would be funded. The other problem for the Lib/Dems is that Cable seems to be the voice for them not the leader that could prove to be a problem. However, none of the parties are coming up with any plausable reforms as far as a discussion on how we move forward with our economy.

I am starting to wonder though how much the public is to blame for the media reporting celebrities rather than the real issues. With the advent of public interest in Susan Boyle and Michael Jackson it has occurred to me that the media only reflect what is of interest to the general public. The outpouring of public grief over a celebrity that the the public did not even know in the form of Michael Jackson was a surprise to me. I personally have no interest in this person as I remember the court case and did not think the outcome was satisfactory. Nor has his music had much influence on me either as it was a fair while ago that he made any impression on the music scene. The interest in Susan Boyle also was over the top with Brown only reflecting the public mood by checking on her health. We should rather have examined whether these sort of shows that produce problems like Susan Boyle have a place in our society.

If as a society we do not start to demand more from our media and public figures that they focus on the real problems we face (including our troops who are fighting in my opinion a war that cannot be won) should we really complain when they report what they think we want.

59. At 2:21pm on 28 Jun 2009, Alanknows wrote:

...My complaint about MP's expenses is not that they are on the fiddle but they lack the competence to organise a simple and effective system in which they are treated the same as everyone else. If they can not cope with this trivial task what hope is there that they are any good at coping with more demanding legislative responsibilities?

But, the vast majority of them are on the fiddle to a greater or lesser extent and the vast majority are incompetent. There's no telling why people vote the way they do, but I'd like to know a lot more about the selection process. Surely there must be at least a reasonable supply of clever, basically honest, altruistic people stepping forward as candidates. Why do so few of them make it as far as selection? Is 'positive discrimination' to blame? Is media-friendliness a deciding factor? Perhaps the question we should ba asking is: 'Why do the constituency committees select such rubbish candidates?'

Will Lewis? Is that who that was, Nicholas?

The Daily Telegraph is constantly praised for its recent behaviour but please - spare me. The accusation of Michael Howard losing it for example? Tosh. Unwillingness to accept the newspaper was rather scattergun with its reporting, Will Lewis! Everybody got hurt.

Mayhem? Freedom Of Speech. Freedom of the Press?

I am in an odd postition of knowing about some stuff that the Media wont print - be it to someones disadvantage or not. The fearless Press! I plan to rib them mercilessly one day - a Blog from Overseas perhaps.lol

But I said weeks ago - reporter like you, Nicholas knew all this stuff about MoPs expenses before it was "leaked" in the normally salacious way the Dire Media do it. Look at what we just found out! lol

But the deliberate bias of the initial coverage accepted - the Telegraph missed several opportunities to treat the matter with a bit of sensitivity and even handedness. Nope that wouldn't do. Idiots!

But of course - it is what was formally Fleet Street - its normal hypocrisy kicked in - check with the owners - allegedly - and it became a game of pulling wings of relatively innocent butterflies amongst those that deserved to be outed for abusing the system.

And then those almost innocents were left to the tender mercies of us the Great Unwashed public and who we would decide to "hate today". Poor MoPs (some of them at least).

No wonder you "thought on" sometimes at bedtime. I would too.

Not the Media's finest hour - or several weeks was it?

(hypothetical) question regarding MPs expenses - take two clowns, both very wealthy, one buys his second home outright (so no mortgage interest) and makes a 3k claim for cleaning his moat, whilst the other takes out a mortgage of, say, 350k (generating interest of around 20k per annum) and makes no other claim - so, forget about the "Rules" for a second and tell me - which of this pair of clowns should we be most angry with? - clown number one who's put in 3k for the moat? - or clown number two with his 20k mortgage claim? - what's worse? ... moat or mortgage? ... mortgage or moat?

How much of what we are told at governmental level by any party can we realistically trust as an individual voter or taxpayer.

At one point Gordon Brown said in Parliament that he was opposed to the re-settlement of Gurkhas to the UK because it would cost the UK taxpayer £1.5 billion? So how much did he calculate that each gurkha immigrant was to cost the UK taxpayer? Is this £50,000/resettled person on 30,000 gurkhas?

Have 4 million+ 'immigrants' recently cost the UK taxpayer a minimum of £200 billion (or this £2 trillion?) - yet another example of how easy it is to play with figures?

It is odd that it seems that immigrants do not cost the UK taxpayer anything unless they are gurkhas - according to Gordon Brown.

Lies, damn lies and government statistics/economic forecasts.

64 sagamix

A thief who steals ten pounds is a thief. A thief who steals one hundred pounds is a thief.

A thief is a thief is a thief.

Likewise an MP who takes 3k and an MP who takes 20k from the taxpayer are both argueably unfit for office.

It's a bit of a shame that a political blog should be used as a plug for a fairly anodyne radio show.

Of course it was interesting to learn from the Telegraph that some MPs were stupid enough to try and claim for moat cleaning and duck houses. I seem to recall that the claims were refused...

Obviously it is interesting if a rich Tory (David C) claims mortgage payments on his second home in his constituency, when he could have bought it anyway. And that the PM asked us to pay for the repainting of his garden house (and we did).

The interesting bit of all this nonsense is that MPs tried to block the release of information, then published highly "redacted" versions that revealed little of the real scandals - and say they will do that again.

I'm rather more concerned that Balls has changed the focus on reading and numeracy in primary schools. (That used to be the essential focus even when my old Mum was a child. And will obviously continue to be the most critical aspects of children's education.) Maybe they will start to break down some of the other rediculous Westminster imposed targets and let teachers teach. And tell kids that they don't go to school for seek "socially relevant information" - they go to learn. At least they should. I'm still appalled that after massive spending, so many youngsters arrive at secondary schools with inadequate skills - and many go on to university with inadequate preparation despite the apparently wonderful improvement in educational standards.

Still more interested in the nonsense over future spending cuts. There is no debate. It's written into the Treasury forecasts. So why does Brown find it so hard to be honest? If there will be an increase in real-terms spend, it can't be from the Treasury income. So it's either to come from money he/we don't have - therefore more borrowing - or from PFI - which isn't government spend anyway and stacks up current-tax expenditure for future generations.

How come Brown warbled on about clamping down on excesses in the banking boardrooms, then allows the new chief at RBS to gain upwards of GBP9mil if he manages to get the share price up a bit? That's an incentive to massively increase prifitability. So how does that square with Brown's own desire for more cash to be cycled from banks to businesses, while at the same time the Treasury/FSA are looking at making banks hold higher liquidity?

Meanwhile Mrs Balls (Y Cooper) has people in the Dept for Work and Pensions send out false/invented job applications. Apparently with a view to seeing whether it should be made illegal to include your name on an application. Because that could allow companies to discriminate against people with non-British sounding names. Makes you weep.

So what is next? You shouldn't allow applicants to state whether they are male or female and definitely not age (risk that companies will worry about potential pregnancy leave); not allow addresses (could be used to check the quality of the neighbourhood); not mention which school or university you attended (could indicate the quality of education you attained); maybe make every person male or female) attend interviews wearing the burkha, to ensure people are not rated for their physical attributes - or lack of them.

What's wrong with people in the parliamentary whirlpool?

Sorry Nick. You sounded troubled today because you hadn't worked out what public reaction would be like when faced with rediculous MP expenses/allowances claims. Too many in the Westminster loop appear to have a limited understanding that for a large number of people, politics should be a very background affair. The whole New Labour bit forced political stuff into the front libe of public awareness. Special grids to ensure key announcements so that attention is grabbed every day.

I certainly don't need that. We've had change after change after change to processes, procedures and targets across swathes of public services. (But we still have less hospital beds than we had in 1997... and way behind availability across Europe.) Bad, ill-thought-through laws apparently dreamed up after an expenses-provided G&T and shovelled through the Houses with little understanding of the consequences. Masses of junk emenating from Brussels.

Frankly, I'd welcome a part time parliament. Allowed only to pass laws or approve regulatory changes or EU dictats if every single MP signs an affidavit to confirm they have read, understand and approve each piece of the 3,000 or so changes to individuals, businesses or government functions that float past every year.

And, if we think expenses are bad in Westminster, you, Nick, and your colleagues should get a grip on the excesses in Brussels. That should be pretty easy. IF there is a journalistic will.

67. At 5:57pm on 28 Jun 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

And, if we think expenses are bad in Westminster, you, Nick, and your colleagues should get a grip on the excesses in Brussels. That should be pretty easy. IF there is a journalistic will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Send more of the the BBC to Brussels - their professional lounge lizard expenses would be sky high with all of those coffee houses, restuarants and bars as permanently frequented by MEP's?

64 sagamix

Me again saga, to rework the old saying in the examples to which you refer the chap who stole the lamb has been hung whilst he who stole the sheep is scot free.

tunbridge @ 69

yes, that's exactly my point - now someone's finally got it (you) I can maybe let it drop - quelle relief

fairly @ 67

nice to hear from you again - a moratorium on new laws for, say, 3 years has a lot going for it, actually - let's take a breather while we decide what we want to do, where we want to go, why we want to go there, stuff like that - good idea!

#68 nautonier wrote:
67. At 5:57pm on 28 Jun 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

And, if we think expenses are bad in Westminster, you, Nick, and your colleagues should get a grip on the excesses in Brussels. That should be pretty easy. IF there is a journalistic will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Send more of the the BBC to Brussels - their professional lounge lizard expenses would be sky high with all of those coffee houses, restuarants and bars as permanently frequented by MEP's?

---------

Nautonier,

If the Beeb can send 400 hundred people to cover the Glastonbury Music Fest, I'd have thought they could spare 3 or 4 to get their teeth into the backside of the European Parliament.

I listened to a Swedish MEP recently talking about a minor matter. He'd bought a return air ticket from a low cost carrier in order to show up in Brussels, but when claiming expenses, was told that he had to accept payment for a standard business class fare in return. Guy said he pays the excess to charity. Just makes you wonder how much complete waste of money there really is that organisation!

I'd be intrigued to know why someone referred my post 62! - it simply said that I'd like to know more about the constituency committee selection processes. Are you sure you referred the right one?

64. At 5:34pm on 28 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
(hypothetical) question regarding MPs expenses - take two clowns, both very wealthy, one buys his second home outright (so no mortgage interest) and makes a 3k claim for cleaning his moat, whilst the other takes out a mortgage of, say, 350k (generating interest of around 20k per annum) and makes no other claim - so, forget about the "Rules" for a second and tell me - which of this pair of clowns should we be most angry with? - clown number one who's put in 3k for the moat? - or clown number two with his 20k mortgage claim? - what's worse? ... moat or mortgage? ... mortgage or moat?

Surely we are only concerned about the principle. Neither sum of money compared, say, to the billions in taxes wasted on pointless wars amounts to a hill of beans.

Well, in response to the incredible brass neck of Mr Howard etc., I'll just paraphrase a certain infamous 'lady of the night' with clearly far more ethical and moral fibre than almost any MP presently in Parliament, "He would say that wouldn't he!"

Mr Howard's views on the Mr Lewis and his Daily Telegraph 'expense claim and tell' stories is truly stunning for its head-in-the-sand duplicity!
Where has Mr Howard been these last few weeks? What has Mr Howard been reading? How can Mr Howard possibly conclude Lewis and the DT have been "..unfair.." and "..untruthful.." about the 650 prats now serving in Parliament!?

How can it be unfair revealing hundreds of our MPs have 'inadvertently' filled in the wrong forms and received monies they were not entitled to or should have had more sense than to claim?
How is it untruthful revealing hundreds of our MPs through general ineptness and all too often not a little sharp practise managed to get their grubby hands on Public money?

A Member of Parliament is elected to serve the People, Mr Howard - - they are not there to line their pockets even by accident (particularly as they did not offer to pay back until exposed and even now censor their claim forms)- - their conduct must be above reproach and especially where the Public Purse is concerned. Probity in Public Office is the first duty of any Public Official and especially one who has stood for Election to that Office.
To claim (as so many of this rotten Westminster bunch have) it was a 'mistake', an 'oversight', a 'mix-up of paperwork', or that it went through on a 'nod and a wink' from the powers that be just makes the whole affair even more despicable.

No employee in any other walk of life using those excuses would be in that same work the following week: I knew a Head Teacher of my child's junior school suspended for 3 months whilst an investigation was conducted into their misuse of school stationery for a local amateur dramatics group!

Mr Howard, if you or the other 650 don't like the heat, get the hell out of the Public's Parliament ASAP!

saga 70

About your mortgage "story" - you have been leading us all on for days with alusions to scandal, which is why I called your earlier posts innuendo, because you seemed to have nothing to back it up with but twisted inferences because you kept getting your posts blocked. As if there must be something very serious in the story, because it kept getting blocked.

Now you sneak the story in through the back door, and what do you have? Nothing more than "MP acquires second home and claims mortgage as expenses." Is that it? Is that all you've got? Agreed, in 64 you did your best to dress it up, but you've got to admit that "MP uses expenses for exactly their intended purpose" doesn't exactly make waves.

Yes indeed, I called it innuendo when I hadn't seen the story, just your circumlocution around it. Now I have seen it, I think what you have been trying to create is a smear, and you should be ashamed.

#70, sagamix wrote:

fairly @ 67

nice to hear from you again - a moratorium on new laws for, say, 3 years has a lot going for it, actually - let's take a breather while we decide what we want to do, where we want to go, why we want to go there, stuff like that - good idea!

Hi Saga.

Couldn't take all that breast beating anguish stuff flowing out of Westminster. It's not worth a hill of beans, compared with the pouring away of billions of pounds of taxes into completely stupid, underperforming government "initiatives" we've had for years.

I don't mind if governments pass laws.

It's the quality of thought before the laws are drafted, the quality of drafting and the sense that somebody, somewhere in government has any darned idea of the consequences of a new law that concerns me.

I do care about the way governments spend money. As far as I can tell, Blair and Brown assumed that higher spend meant good outcome.

If a major plc had a finance director who stood up at the AGM and said "You shareholders must be impressed. This year we have spent 10 per cent more than last year... OK the outcome was a bit flakey, but just look at all the money we poured in..." then said director would soon be feeding the fishes. (Unless, of course, he/she were in a financial services space that Blair and Brown said were the key to UK growth...)

YOU tell me how we can stop all the garbage coming out of Brussels and ensure that legislation and regulation originating in the UK can be brought in line with normality - and I'll vote for whichever party adopts a sensible line...

I just get annoyed that my kids are paying for a government that measures social advances via cash spent. Complete rollocks. But they won't stop thinking that way. It's like Groundhog Day.

75 jrperry re 70 saga via saga 64

I think you are being very generous to describe the MP as using the expenses system for its intended purpose.

The best I can come up with is working the system in a way that leads to personal financial gain.

I can understand sagas frustration at the way this is being ignored.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I heard a bit of the programme today- Sunday- but it surprised me again that Nick mentioned David Cameron's mortgage but not Gordon Brown's 'flipping' I've noticed this before. Is it because Brown has put his London flat into his wife's name? Is it because of when it happened? He was Chancellor and had an official residence so in effect had 2 second homes. One in Fife and one in London.Why is this never investigated? I say all of this as a former labour voter whose current nausea at Brown's hypocrisy makes it difficult to even look at him on telly.

jrp @ 75

you should be ashamed

er hang on, that's like saying it's the Daily Telegraph, rather than the MPs, who should be ashamed about the expenses! ... I'm merely the bearer of difficult tidings about Catch

38. At 1:54pm on 27 Jun 2009, xTunbridge wrote:
34 nautonier

The way shoplifting is treated has long annoyed me.
=========================================================================
As some one who as worked as a security guard I can tell you that it is not the easiest of jobs you have to be 99.9% sure before you tackle them and when you tackle them you then have to watch for knives,screwdrivers,razor blades and hypodermic needles which some of them carrie and do not give it a second thought to stab or cut you

Thing is that shoplifters cost us all money as the retailers puts a loss mark up on everthing they sell

But the thing that gets me so much is that they never seem to get the maximum sentence after the courts have heard all the sob story from all the do gooders

The best thing is that they can make a good living at it

just like MP,s

open @ 76

yes, like you, I'm a believer in small government - nice, simple tax system where the poor don't pay and the rich pay loads, an end to private education, laws to prevent racial and sexual discrimination, tough regulation to protect the consumer against being ripped off, a few green laws, public ownership of transport infrastructure, energy, utilities, the police, the military, the odd gallery and museum, maybe retail mortgage lending and ... er ... well, that's it actually ... everything else, hands off and let it rip!

Just finished listening to the sickening spectacle of Nick Robinson in his programme "Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem" trying to convince us all that MPs were "unfairly treated" by The Telegraph in exposing the MPs' widespread fraud on the taxpayer.

Robinson apparently STILL doesn't get it: people knew NOTHING about the outrageously mind-blowing claims made by MPs before The Telegraph blew the lid off it.

Suddenly we could all see that the taxpayer is paying for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - whether it was needed to help MPs do their jobs or not. We are paying for things that ordinary members of the public are not allowed to claim under existing tax laws.

We had all suspected for years that MPs were only in it to line their own pockets. The difference now is we KNOW they are. The Telegraph should be praised, not criticised for revealing that.

'Questions' for BBC on expenses

The BBC says the expenses claims of top staff were reasonable
The BBC has "a few questions" to answer about the expenses claims of senior staff, a Cabinet minister has said.

Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw said details of claims by top executives showed the BBC must be "more careful" about how it spent public money.

BBC Director-General Mark Thompson has defended the claims, made public after Freedom of Information requests, as "justified and reasonable".

They showed thousands of pounds spent on top hotels, dinners and champagne.

'Reforming pressure'

Mr Thompson, himself, claimed more than £2,000 when he cut short his holiday to deal with last year's row over lewd calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand.

Mr Bradshaw, a former BBC journalist, said the corporation's decision to publish details of the pay and expenses of its 50 top executives was welcome.

But he said some of the information called into question how responsibly the licence fee was being spent.

"One or two of the things, for example some of the parties that were thrown for departing executives and stars, I was rather surprised about," he told Sky News.

In government and other areas of the public sector, such costs would have been met by the individuals themselves, he suggested.

"I think there are a few questions for the BBC," he added.

"I suspect what will happen here is the antiseptic of sunlight, the fact that it has been made open, will act as a big reforming pressure and they probably will be a bit more careful about how they spend public money in future."

The Tories have said the BBC needs to publish more details about what it pays its highest-earning stars to show licence fee payers they are getting value for money

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123007.stm


=========================================================================
MP's are a bit rich saying BBC needs to publish more details

When MP's hide every detail in such away that you can not get a true picture of what they have been up too

I would say BBC have been more up front about expenses
it do's tell you for, what, why and when the expense was incurred that is more than the MP's gave out with the blackout marker over page after page

After listening to Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem You could not seem to under stand why people have got so up set about some of the thinks MP'S have claimed for

It is the little things that to be honest that most people pay out of there wages dog food for instance you own a dog you buy dog food out of your pay 90% of people can not put it on expenses there are some jobs were claiming dog food is a right expense but not for most MP's

The only MP that could of claimed for dog food and got away with it was David Blunkett as his dog is a working dog who is required for David to do his job as an MP

The silly claims made people look and think while the big claims got under the radar till people started looking at everything closer then they saw the full extent of what MP's had been up too

as Mortgages seemed to be a legitimate claim till you started looking closer at it then the full horror hit people in the face that MP's had been up all sorts of things to max out what they could get

56. At 12:25pm on 28 Jun 2009, flamepatricia wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It all ways as been like that it's nothing new

It is now that who is who is more in the open and not done over a drink at some club or bar somewhere as it used to be

67. At 5:57pm on 28 Jun 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

Meanwhile Mrs Balls (Y Cooper) has people in the Dept for Work and Pensions send out false/invented job applications. Apparently with a view to seeing whether it should be made illegal to include your name on an application. Because that could allow companies to discriminate against people with non-British sounding names. Makes you weep.
=========================================================================

Well if you had read the full story it was to find out if those employers turned you down on race or sex which are both covered by the discrimination acts

but if you have not got an interview for the job you don't know if you have been discriminated against therefore it was a right and proper the DWP to find out a true picture

as you or I could not find this out for ourselves when applying for a job we would just except that we did not get an interview because our qualifications were not as good as the ones who got an interview

That is discrimination by the back door and as such unenforceable at the moment

Nick, just listened to the programme Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem. Speaking about the role of journalists in investigating MPs' expenses claims, you say at 21:55 "Should we have uncovered it earlier? And there's no doubt we could have asked tougher questions about what MPs spend their second homes allowance on, but we allowed ourselves... I allowed myself to assume that it was properly policed, that it was money spent on things that people genuinely needed"

The point is, it is not simply about things that are 'genuinely needed'. People might need all sorts of things, including repairs to one's home, food etc. But ordinary mortals have to pay for these things out of their own money. Normally, expenses are supposed to be reimbursement for money that has been spent in genuine pursuance of one's work. However, it is is clear that a system and culture has been allowed to evolve where the expenses system was simply a way of topping up wages in the absence of a transparent pay increase.

The answer might be a review of wages, plus much tighter rules about what can be claimed. The electorate are certainly going to want to see greater 'value for money' in the way Parliament is funded. Do we really need so many MPs now that most of our laws come from the EU? In particular, do we need so many Scottish MPs at Westminster, particularly as most Scottish issues are now decided at Holyrood? Given that many MPs just sit on the benches and go through the lobbies when they are told, a large pay increase in lieu of expenses is a non starter.

88. At 03:34am on 29 Jun 2009, DistantTraveller wrote

No one ever seems to look at the EDM's or Amendments to bills to see what as been tag on buy the back door by all sides of the house and lords

It is only when you spend hours going through all these things you start to find the loop holds they have placed in the bill

The new set of rules are not much better when you start looking closely at them

what do we expect when they are accountant QC and Bankers they all know how to make laws that look ok at first but when it comes down to it any good QC could drive a hole through it

They like to hide stuff with jargon that can have two or more meanings depending on what you are trying to get out of the system

80 sagamix

No, absolutely not. And let's not get confused with misleading assertions as to what your story might be "like".

Having accommodation in the constituency as well as in London (except if your constituency is in London, of course) was an acceptable pass in the test of whether expenses were, or were not, an essential part of the job of being an MP.

Your problem is presumably with the concept of "MP claims expenses while appearing already to be well off", but I note you try to avoid diluting the things you have written by including that explicitly. You would have your problems with that line of argument anyway, because of the number of MPs on your own side who are also well off and claiming expenses. Nonetheless, if you want to argue for expenses being means tested, then why not do so, openly?

Instead, you are trying to create a mood about an individual MP. And you do so by a surprisingly (for you) careful construction, dependent more on apparent omission than on content, and by the assertion, as I said before, that because your posts were blocked, there must be some greater truth in them. You do all this because he is your political oponent. You are playing against the man, rather than the facts, because the facts don't support what you wish to say. That is where your posts cease to be an argument as such, and become a smear.

Catch? (as you so elegantly put it).

"59. At 2:21pm on 28 Jun 2009, Alanknows wrote:
Interesting programme. Your coverage would have been better if:-

(1) you explained the difference between "allowances" and "expenses", and quizzed MPs as to why an ALLOWANCE for a second home reasonably needed close to Westminster should be claimed as EXPENSES for all sorts on unrelated locations;

(2) you had explained how capital gains tax works in relation to everyone with more than one home, MPs being no different, and that it can not be avoided; all you can do is choose to which home it applies."

Sorry MP's ARE different when it comes to Capital Gains, They have special rules (introduced by G.Brown in the late 90's) that efectivialy gives them zero capital gains for BOTH their second home and main home. So to sell a house with little or no capital gains tax all an MP needs to do is tell the parlimentry fees office that the property is either their main or second home. These rules are laid out in the Inland Rev MP tax guidelines.

BUT in the same Inland Rev Doc it states that even if they monies are paid under ACA allowance MP's might be liable to income tax and NI where an item is claimed for is not soley used in connection with their work. IE were an MP claims for a TV licence, BBQ or an internet connection at the house where their faimily live full time BUT they dont would be liable for tax as a direct ratio of the days they spend there. Failure to declair this incours fines, back tax AND interest. Unfortunatly this point has only been picked up by a few reporters.

"38. At 1:54pm on 27 Jun 2009, xTunbridge wrote:
34 nautonier

The way shoplifting is treated has long annoyed me.

It is theft. But it gets a police reaction far in excess of its worth. How many times have you been in the supermarket when the car/van with two coppers turn up to take away an alleged shoplifter. They turn up minutes after the call coz its a nice easy pinch and thats them off the road for a few hours. Try getting one to respond to a burglary as quick."

As the old story goes,

Woman Dials 999.... there are two men breaking into my shed

999 Call Handler.... just let them finish breaking in and dont get in the way

Woman... If you send someone around you can catch them.

999 Call Handler... Sorry there is no one available. Well send a crime officer around in the next few days.

Woman hangs up in disgust

5 Minutes later Woman dials 9999... Dont bother with the scen of crim officer Ive shot the two burglers

With in minutes a police helicopter is hovering over head and 3 arm responce units are surounding the house and the burglers caught in the act of robbing the shed.

Police Man.... You said you had shot the robbers.

Woman... You said there were no poilce available, looks like we were both wrong

The law locks up the hapless felon
who steals the goose from off the common,
but lets the greater felon loose
who steals the common from the goose

It sounds as though we will not to have a comprehensive spending review until after the next election. A spending review would expose the true state of the public finances and would reveal that there will have to be huge cuts in our public finances whoever wins the next election. If Brown were to allow this to happen he would have to admit that his cries of Conservatives cuts and Labour spending are a nonsense. It will also show that Darling believes 80% of fiscal tightening will have to come from spending cuts. It yet again proves that Brown is putting the needs of the Labour party above the needs of the Country. Mandelson seems happy to to continue with the Labour untruths about cuts by the Conservatives and spending by Labour. Using the inheritance tax (which is already funded) as a stick to beat the Conservatives with.

Browns excessive spending plans has resulted in the Government running annual deficits since 2002 despite the unpresidented growth we have had in recent years. This has forced Brown to mess with the length of the economic cycle. It would have been truely interesting to us if we could find out the full extent of our problems but this seems to be unlikely.

I feel therefore as Brown is setting out his plans for the future Labour Government today, though goodness knows what they have been doing for 12 years in office. Added to this he will not be able hold back the tide of growing realisation of the outside world and the public how bad our debt levels are as a Country much longer, that an election this year is very likely.

Nick, Slightly off topic...

But as you know, Lord Mandelson is now the second Minister who has admitted that Labour are "re-prioritising" spending. So we now know for definate that the "department of the enviorment" has a reduced in real terms budget (but is spending more on flood defences, and there fore a lot less else where within its budget) and as of this morning that funds are being taken from the "Home Office" and the "department of transport" budgets to pay for social housing....

So for 3 major departments Labour has now admitted they will be cutting budgets in 2010 onwards.

Looks abit like Aprils budget document has actually been read by two Ministers. Brown must be spitting tacks about the reverlations as he is still saying there are no real term cuts!

Also given that Lord Mandelson stated today that forcasting behond 2010 would be like picking numbers out of a hat, can you ask him, Brown or Darling how many years ahead Darling will be forcasting in Novembers pre-budget statement and if its after 2010 why he/they can not do the next spending round till after the election.

#82 sagamix wrote:
"nice, simple tax system where the poor don't pay and the rich pay loads"

I'm not rich, and I don't agree with you.

There is plenty of evidence now that increasing tax rates for the rich decreases tax revenue over time. Obviously this is a complex matter, and determining the optimum tax rate (in the sense of maximising tax revenue) requires extended, and non-partisan, analysis (not something we will ever get from the current Government, of course). In particular some commentators (the IFS for one) have calculated that increasing the top income tax rate from 40% to 50% will not increase tax revenue at all.

sagamix 64

It is the guy with the moat because he has tried to claim for something which is not necessary to do his job. You see whether you are rich or not (and I do not believe Cameron is that rich personally his parents and wife are) you are entitled to claim the same as everyone else if that is the rules. Otherwise you would have to change the rules so that even much less well off people cannot claim either. You have to think if you were doing the job and that was your entitlement (to have the interest paid on your mortgage) you would most probably claim. No one does a job out of charity unless it is a vocation. In which case if the work of an MP became a vocation or calling you would only get independently rich people doing it anyway. In the work place you should be treated exactly the same no matter what your background.

For instance I work with someone who is very wealthy, should I expect him to pass up all his expense claims just because he has more money than me when he has chosen to do a similar job.

No I am sorry this is a non story from you about Cameron as his constituents seem happy with his claims and they are the ones who count.

government departments and Voldemort hiding the bad debts and bad borrowing and cuts news like the overextended credit junkies they are - just when you thought they couldn't look more shambolic, this governement over-achieves in the only way it appears it can - totally and utterly beneath contempt...

95. 96.

I'm sure you have read of the theory being floated that Mandelson is 'allowing' Brown to hang on to office until the Irish give the Lisbon Treaty the go-ahead so that no referendum need be held in the UK.
If there's an election and the Tories get a big enough majority it is likely to scupper Mandelson's Euro state plans. It's not the most far-fetched theory I've ever heard.