|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 30, 2010 9:07:47 GMT 1
I just don't get why protecting his privacy required him to claim public money.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 30, 2010 9:45:28 GMT 1
I just don't get why protecting his privacy required him to claim public money. Exactly. If he did not want to be linked to this bloke he should not have submitted several years of receipts linking him with him, surely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 19:30:43 GMT 1
[ He resigned quickly and payed the money back without hesitation, he knew he did wrong and hasn't tried to bluster and totally deny wrong doing like previous politicians from all parties in the last Parliament. . oh, so this wasnt revealed by a daily newspaper then, he had actually come forward before the paper rumbled him. come off it nick, he did nothing Honorable, if he had been Honorable he wouldnt have done it in the first place, or possibly come forward at some point and apologised and paid it back. i could conceivably of had some sympathy then, but if the telegraph hadnt brought this rather sad but none the less sleazy business to light, what plans did he have to make recompense? This was all in the dark until he got rumbled. no different to all the other sleazy thieves who have been fiddling the tax payers, from all sides of the house.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 30, 2010 19:45:58 GMT 1
been watching this story and i cant believe the way it seems to be treated by the government. they are hoping he comes back soon. personally i dont want him in government if he is going to sneak around nicking public money and giving him to his boyfriend. i heard matthew parrish saying he thought it was forgivable because he was probably a bit mixed up and was probably lieing to himself about it, what a pile of crap.
they all think its fine for them to cut everything and tell us to tighten our belts , happy to crack down on benefit cheats and talk tough about the public, but if you have MP after your name, you can nick yourself a fortune, get caught, face no criminal charges and be welcome back with open arms. Sickening hypocracy from all the parties on this and we seem to just take it.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 31, 2010 2:25:34 GMT 1
The thing about the expenses issue is people who the leaders of the respective parties wanted to retain were defended and protected. People who were/are serial troughers now have ministerial posts. The expenses scandal was a godsend for Cameron: it meant he could get rid of a significant number of MPs who thought they were on a sinecure in some safe Tory seat and were serial rebels as well as troughers. having a coalition has helped him to marginalise the influence of those who remain.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on May 31, 2010 8:27:38 GMT 1
Yeah because that 1% rise would have covered all the cuts NI rise planned by labour would have brought in around 7bn. So yes, these ones it would have. The NI rise would cost 50,000 jobs according to some. The spending cuts announced by the Tories will probably result in the same in the short term. Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. They then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Like they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. And their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? I am pleased we have ended up with the Government we have, it is certainly the outcome I hoped for when I voted. Whoever got in power it was going to be painful but at least things are being tried as opposed to just hoping things would get better. People elsewhere on this thread talk about education spending being cut, in some cases I agree with this, perhaps it will mean the money being spent to more effect. I am a School Governor, on Wednesday I had to attend a meeting with the Local Education Authority. Apart from the School there were five other "state employees" at the meeting and I couldn't see the value of the meeting or the value those five people added. Lets cut out this type of waste and spend some of that money which gives better education
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2010 10:40:06 GMT 1
[ Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. And didThey then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Which it wasLike they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. Dont believe, as someone who appears to support the present condem bunch, that you are having a go at Labour for rigging things so they can stay in power, how brazenly hypocriticalAnd their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? Yep, Labour where doing something to try and fix the problem, rather than just chatting s**t about itI am pleased we have ended up with the Government we have, it is certainly the outcome I hoped for when I voted. Whoever got in power it was going to be painful but at least things are being tried as opposed to just hoping things would get better. ::)Martin, just read that again and try and understand your twisted loggic. Labour where trying things and hoping they would work, in exactly the same way the condems are trying things and hoping they will work.People elsewhere on this thread talk about education spending being cut, in some cases I agree with this, perhaps it will mean the money being spent to more effect. perhaps sounds very much like "hopeing"I am a School Governor, on Wednesday I had to attend a meeting with the Local Education Authority. Apart from the School there were five other "state employees" at the meeting and I couldn't see the value of the meeting or the value those five people added. Lets cut out this type of waste and spend some of that money which gives better education can you tell us what the state employees where, there jobs, roles ect might give us a better idea what value they add.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 31, 2010 10:55:04 GMT 1
NI rise planned by labour would have brought in around 7bn. So yes, these ones it would have. The NI rise would cost 50,000 jobs according to some. The spending cuts announced by the Tories will probably result in the same in the short term. Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. They then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Like they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. And their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? I am pleased we have ended up with the Government we have, it is certainly the outcome I hoped for when I voted. Whoever got in power it was going to be painful but at least things are being tried as opposed to just hoping things would get better. People elsewhere on this thread talk about education spending being cut, in some cases I agree with this, perhaps it will mean the money being spent to more effect. I am a School Governor, on Wednesday I had to attend a meeting with the Local Education Authority. Apart from the School there were five other "state employees" at the meeting and I couldn't see the value of the meeting or the value those five people added. Lets cut out this type of waste and spend some of that money which gives better education let me get theis straight, you specifically voted for a condem pact? which one of their spending plans did you support pre-election? as you are happy with this current mob, are you happy with an MP stealing our money with so much sympathy from the cabinet when he got caught? i thought this was supposed to be an era of "new politics" seems like old bulls**t to me
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 31, 2010 11:25:07 GMT 1
NI rise planned by labour would have brought in around 7bn. So yes, these ones it would have. The NI rise would cost 50,000 jobs according to some. The spending cuts announced by the Tories will probably result in the same in the short term. Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. They then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Like they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. And their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? Not really, no, your version of events is pure fiction. I thought Labour intervened with a massive fiscal stimulus, billions to prop up the banks, quantatative easing,car scr@ppage scheme etc. Something the Tories opposed. My bone of contention with Labour over all this is that is was seemingly condition free, and the banks should have been nationalised and the profits ploughed back into our public services, rather than going on bonuses. I don't understand your point on the NI contributions.Under the coalition employees will pay them but employers, due to pressure from rich lobbyists have been spared it. Looks like the rich will force a compromise on capital gains, too. We're all in it together Reminder of Tories stance: www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-tory-policy-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-1787347.html
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 31, 2010 11:47:44 GMT 1
Indeed he does deserved to be where he is, out of the government for fiddling his expences. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10192614.stmCameron says "You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else" you are a cheat who has been caught fiddling large sums of money out of the tax payer, you are motivated by greed and a desire not to get caught. He resigned quickly and payed the money back without hesitation, he knew he did wrong and hasn't tried to bluster and totally deny wrong doing like previous politicians from all parties in the last Parliament. Oh, how very commendable of him. I'm sure if I trouser 40k of public money I'm not entitled to , that would be absolutely fine, as long as I paid it back 'without hesitation' when I was caught. Imagine Cameron hailing someone who had de-frauded the benefits system to the tune of 40K as 'good and honourable' and 'not motivated by money'. Where is the difference? Lest we forget Laws is already a very wealthy man, who shouldn't be impinging on the tax payer to subsidise his life style. This is no different to the rash of expenses fiddling exposed before the election. He hardly had an attack of conscience, as usual the contrition comes after the wrong doing is exposed. When these people say they are 'sorry' , they mean they're sorry they've been caught.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Jun 1, 2010 15:31:46 GMT 1
[ He resigned quickly and payed the money back without hesitation, he knew he did wrong and hasn't tried to bluster and totally deny wrong doing like previous politicians from all parties in the last Parliament. . oh, so this wasnt revealed by a daily newspaper then, he had actually come forward before the paper rumbled him. come off it nick, he did nothing Honorable, if he had been Honorable he wouldnt have done it in the first place, or possibly come forward at some point and apologised and paid it back. i could conceivably of had some sympathy then, but if the telegraph hadnt brought this rather sad but none the less sleazy business to light, what plans did he have to make recompense? This was all in the dark until he got rumbled. no different to all the other sleazy thieves who have been fiddling the tax payers, from all sides of the house. I didn't say he was honourable and I've no doubt he was tipped off that the Daily Telegraph were running the story. I do think it's a shame that an able minister who may have been an asset to the Government has had to resign though. Oh well, lets see how Danny Alexander gets on.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jun 1, 2010 20:01:47 GMT 1
[ Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. And did-----response.... only justThey then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Which it was----- response I can't believe you think that, but then if the Labour Party told you the sun had been shining all day today you would quote it on here Like they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. Dont believe, as someone who appears to support the present condem bunch, that you are having a go at Labour for rigging things so they can stay in power, how brazenly hypocritical-------- response ....so if Labour were so confident of winning the election why did they wait so long before calling the election? Clearly a desperate measure to hang on as long as possible. And their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? Yep, Labour where doing something to try and fix the problem, rather than just chatting s**t about it----- response oh yes the spending review before the general election was a clear sign of trying to fix things.......... what spending review, oh yes not the right time to do it before an election despite doing one before the last two elections.I am pleased we have ended up with the Government we have, it is certainly the outcome I hoped for when I voted. Whoever got in power it was going to be painful but at least things are being tried as opposed to just hoping things would get better. ::)Martin, just read that again and try and understand your twisted loggic. Labour where trying things and hoping they would work, in exactly the same way the condems are trying things and hoping they will work.People elsewhere on this thread talk about education spending being cut, in some cases I agree with this, perhaps it will mean the money being spent to more effect. perhaps sounds very much like "hopeing"I am a School Governor, on Wednesday I had to attend a meeting with the Local Education Authority. Apart from the School there were five other "state employees" at the meeting and I couldn't see the value of the meeting or the value those five people added. Lets cut out this type of waste and spend some of that money which gives better education can you tell us what the state employees where, there jobs, roles ect might give us a better idea what value they add.-------- response a School Improvement Adviser(who appears only interested in covering his back side, all promises but no actions, his boss, a Consultant, two Governor Services staff members, who when questioned about the support seemed to amount to help with self assessment, no direct help)
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jun 1, 2010 20:05:31 GMT 1
Other thing people seem to have forgotren was the planned 1% rise in National Insurance is to pay for the decrease in VAT which the Labour Party hoped would bring us out of recession. They then hoped the ecomony would be strong enough not to notice the 1% NI rise. Like they hoped that waiting long enough for a General Election the Country would be in a better state they would stay in power. And their planes to reduce the deficit was to hope things improved so the increased tax take reduced it. Spot a trend here? Not really, no, your version of events is pure fiction. I thought Labour intervened with a massive fiscal stimulus, billions to prop up the banks, quantatative easing,car scr@ppage scheme etc. Something the Tories opposed. My bone of contention with Labour over all this is that is was seemingly condition free, and the banks should have been nationalised and the profits ploughed back into our public services, rather than going on bonuses. I don't understand your point on the NI contributions.Under the coalition employees will pay them but employers, due to pressure from rich lobbyists have been spared it. Looks like the rich will force a compromise on capital gains, too. We're all in it together Reminder of Tories stance: www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-tory-policy-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-1787347.htmlAll the Labour Policies involve spending more money when we are in massive debt, massive risks as we have been last country to get out of ression but only just. How long can you keep spending money you have not got?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 1, 2010 20:47:08 GMT 1
Not really, no, your version of events is pure fiction. I thought Labour intervened with a massive fiscal stimulus, billions to prop up the banks, quantatative easing,car scr@ppage scheme etc. Something the Tories opposed. My bone of contention with Labour over all this is that is was seemingly condition free, and the banks should have been nationalised and the profits ploughed back into our public services, rather than going on bonuses. I don't understand your point on the NI contributions.Under the coalition employees will pay them but employers, due to pressure from rich lobbyists have been spared it. Looks like the rich will force a compromise on capital gains, too. We're all in it together Reminder of Tories stance: www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-tory-policy-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-1787347.htmlAll the Labour Policies involve spending more money when we are in massive debt, massive risks as we have been last country to get out of ression but only just. How long can you keep spending money you have not got? Labour are now re-positioning themselves as 'anti cuts', but had they been elected I think the only difference between them and the Tories was when the axe was to fall. They believed cutting this year was too early and could endanger the recovery, possibly resulting in a double dip recession. The Lib Dems had similar view until they got the chance to jump into bed with Cameron and share some of that lovely power.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 2, 2010 20:35:03 GMT 1
"All the Labour Policies involve spending more money when we are in massive debt, massive risks as we have been last country to get out of ression but only just. How long can you keep spending money you have not got?" Hmmm watch this from 4:00 minutes in to 25 mins in.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 5, 2010 11:16:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jun 5, 2010 11:28:48 GMT 1
worrying, particularly as the source is a pretty reputable one
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 5, 2010 13:15:46 GMT 1
worrying, particularly as the source is a pretty reputable one This abyss...can we not just pump old rope, golf balls and shredded tyres into it!?
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Jun 5, 2010 13:21:23 GMT 1
So let me get this right, the big fat bankers gave more stupid loans to people using low intrest rates to lure them in... Now they can comfotable predict 70% defaults over the next 2 years as the interest rates reset. They can predict this...and they are sitting back doing nothing about it... Nice!! Give that man a bonus!
|
|