Could It Get More Sickening...

[Johnboy]

So that's it then - they've said sorry and it's back to business as usual.They just don't get it do they - the dismissive and even defiant attitude to public opinion is breathtaking.

The ministers from the DWP attack the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, while all the time they are renovating their properties and enhancing their lifestyles with public funds.

New drugs and treatments are denied on cost grounds while saunas,gardens and tudor beams are installed.

Normal folk are jailed for the heinous crime of not having a t.v. licence,elderly in England are locked up for not paying their council tax and Joe and Joanne Bloggs are dragged into the sheriff court if they fail disclose 1 minute of paid employment while tax is avoided on property deals by MP.s

Service personnel are sent into combat with inadequate and outdated equipment leading to many killed and wounded while we pay a private security company to look after a millionaire's property because she didn't feel safe in London

Many frail and elderly have died last winter because of fuel bills but Willetts needs cash to install 100 bulbs never mind the green issue - must be some property with 100 light fittings.

This is nothing more than wanton and unashamed theft from the public purse - from the very people we elect to look after our interests....

They should have called in the police right enough.... but not to investigate who grassed them to the Telegraph.

[Dmacca]

My sentiments exactly JB, imagine fidiling your TAX bill getting caught, and a simple apology getting you off the hook. the system stinks and to make matters worse they treat the people who they are supposed to serve with utter contempt.

Its good that the media has started to expose the Tories, it shows that their morals are no different to the labour party.

So that's it then - they've said sorry and it's back to business as usual.They just don't get it do they - the dismissive and even defiant attitude to public opinion is breathtaking.

The ministers from the DWP attack the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, while all the time they are renovating their properties and enhancing their lifestyles with public funds.

New drugs and treatments are denied on cost grounds while saunas,gardens and tudor beams are installed.

Normal folk are jailed for the heinous crime of not having a t.v. licence,elderly in England are locked up for not paying their council tax and Joe and Joanne Bloggs are dragged into the sheriff court if they fail disclose 1 minute of paid employment while tax is avoided on property deals by MP.s

Service personnel are sent into combat with inadequate and outdated equipment leading to many killed and wounded while we pay a private security company to look after a millionaire's property because she didn't feel safe in London

Many frail and elderly have died last winter because of fuel bills but Willetts needs cash to install 100 bulbs never mind the green issue - must be some property with 100 light fittings.

This is nothing more than wanton and unashamed theft from the public purse - from the very people we elect to look after our interests....

They should have called in the police right enough.... but not to investigate who grassed them to the Telegraph.

[Canada Bob]

Tell you what Johnboy, if you don't send the comments above in to a National Newspaper I will, you're spot on !!!

I gets worse by the day though don't it...

One of them even claimed for 550 bags of horse shyte !!!

Mind you, they weren't all living it up in posh digs, some where slumming it...

At least some of them made sacrifices...

Oh ! and by the way...

If you think that the expences of the MP's and Ministers make for grim reading, just be glad that you won't get to know what the MEPs have been claiming. They've just voted that the public should not be allowed to have access to what they've been claiming, after all, it's THEIR money, not yours !!!

Edited May 17, 2009 by Canada Bob

[davie]

What bollocks. MP's are paid roughly what senior managers in local government get, and considerably less than middle mangers in London private sector jobs. And yet, we ask them to make the most onerous decisions (which at least 50% of us are bound to object to because of the voting system) on our behalf. No party in power would dare to address the issue because of the headlines it would generate and so MP's have been allowed to top up their take homes as a means of getting a more representative (not necessarily fair) salary.

When the kind of media feeding frenzy that has accompanied this issue happens, do you honestly blame them? We're just getting the logical conclusion of a system that we have allowed for years.

Telegraph? bunch of self righteous bar stewards.

[absent friend]

Now that the dust has settled, I find that I am looking at this situation in a different light and agreeing, in part, with Davie.

We have a system of remuneration that has an accepted 'nose in the trough' element. The action to keep the basic pay low is not too silly as the salary level impacts on pension and severance pay-offs, very high costs to the system - our money- for no return as the recipient is no longer doing the job. Maybe higher income and lower pension/pay-off costs is an idea.

It is the next area that this has caused, that concerns me - the loss of MPs for the sake of being outed and the resultant loss of belief, by the voting public and their potential actions, when the election comes along.

I see us, right now, in a large aircraft being flown by the PM- through turbulence. He, the pilot, may have avoided part of this by changing course but he would have to go through part of it anyway. The storm was sudden and the extent was not known until we were in the middle of it.

Oh, some folk looked up their calender/glass ball and by some power worked out it was all going to happen and the pilot should have known. With this knowledge they obviously are millionaires - well, no they are not and this tells it's own story.

Now here is the problem, we are still flying in rough conditions, using the expenses scandal we can now make a few changes to our flight crew.

Change the pilot! However, how knowledgeable is the new one - remember we have to get through this turbulence and land safely.

The new one at least will have the old one for assistance and has been part of the flight crew and knows some of the requirements. Hope the passengers have their fingers crossed.

Change the full flight crew! They have never flown a plane before and taking over in flight, in turbulence but feel sure they will do a better job. Why? Well they just do, they sound as if they can fly a plane and anyway, anyone can do it! Hope the passengers are now sitting with fingers crossed and saying a prayer.

Change the flight crew for HGV drivers/sailors/etc. WHY?? Because we, the voters, don't like the other options and we are going to teach them a lesson! But they can't fly a plane! So what! Hope the passengers took a change of underwear!

The above can all happen over the next few months but we have to come out the other side of the storm and land on firm ground and if a mistake is made in turbulent times it will be more difficult to handle and we the passengers will be the losers. Changes in any job should happen when their is a period of calm to allow an easing in for new staff - changing in the hight of trouble can cause untold damage.

Happy flying folks hope you have your parachute.

[Johnboy]

Now that the dust has settled, I find that I am looking at this situation in a different light and agreeing, in part, with Davie.

We have a system of remuneration that has an accepted 'nose in the trough' element. The action to keep the basic pay low is not too silly as the salary level impacts on pension and severance pay-offs, very high costs to the system - our money- for no return as the recipient is no longer doing the job. Maybe higher income and lower pension/pay-off costs is an idea.

.

However much are you earning AF? Are you seriously suggesting MPs aren't paid enough?

Government Ministers are paid a basic salary of 144K - many of these have second jobs and others agree to their names being used on company letterheads - so called non-executive directors - for which the going rate is around 20K a year.

They are paid handsomely! Why then have so many claimed ludicrous additional payments - expenses for mortgages for (alleged) second homes, even when they have been paid off?

It's deception, it's utter greed, it's an obscenity. Some of these people should be barred from ever holding public office again, and be made to face criminal proceedings for theft from the public purse.

[DAM]

Now that the dust has settled, I find that I am looking at this situation in a different light and agreeing, in part, with Davie.

We have a system of remuneration that has an accepted 'nose in the trough' element. The action to keep the basic pay low is not too silly as the salary level impacts on pension and severance pay-offs, very high costs to the system - our money- for no return as the recipient is no longer doing the job. Maybe higher income and lower pension/pay-off costs is an idea.

.

However much are you earning AF? Are you seriously suggesting MPs aren't paid enough?

Government Ministers are paid a basic salary of 144K - many of these have second jobs and others agree to their names being used on company letterheads - so called non-executive directors - for which the going rate is around 20K a year.

They are paid handsomely! Why then have so many claimed ludicrous additional payments - expenses for mortgages for (alleged) second homes, even when they have been paid off?

It's deception, it's utter greed, it's an obscenity. Some of these people should be barred from ever holding public office again, and be made to face criminal proceedings for theft from the public purse.

Couldn't agree more Johnboy. Some people on here are missing the point - even if the MPs were on one million pounds a year basic some of them would still fiddle the "expenses".......and they have the cheek to accuse some other countries of being corrupt.

[Yngwie]

What bollocks. MP's are paid roughly what senior managers in local government get, and considerably less than middle mangers in London private sector jobs. And yet, we ask them to make the most onerous decisions on our behalf.

How many of the 646 MPs actually make onerous decisions? The few that do are in the Cabinet and are paid accordingly.

[absent friend]

If we are are to discuss personal incomes that would be rather unfair on the high and low paid ones in this discussion, as the level of personal income does not make a point any more/less valid.

The salary for an MP is very low for the given occupation and is earned by many in the oil industry/financial industry/etc.

Expense claims, to me, have no bearing what so ever on a persons ability to carry out their duties.

I offer you the the choice of two surgeons to operate on your child, one has however been found to be heavy handed at claiming expenses and the other has not claimed at all. Which is your choice to carry out the critical operation. One has an income of ?147000 plus his high expenses, the other is earning ?70000.

Do I hear the cry go up 'Sack him for taking expenses from the public purse, I don't want HIM to operate on my child'??

I don't think so. Hypocrisy or what??

.

[Guest birdog]

I offer you the the choice of two surgeons to operate on your child, one has however been found to be heavy handed at claiming expenses and the other has not claimed at all. Which is your choice to carry out the critical operation. One has an income of ?147000 plus his high expenses, the other is earning ?70000.

Do I hear the cry go up 'Sack him for taking expenses from the public purse, I don't want HIM to operate on my child'??

I don't think so. Hypocrisy or what??

.

Bad example, if a surgeon is willing to be dishonest, is lining his own pockets or heavy handed on his expense claim it has no bearing on his ability to operate. However the job of an MP is to look after the country, and it's citizens, including it's finances and distribution of funds. If these people are willing to rob the country of money through, in some cases, near fraudulent claims then how can they be trusted with far bigger decisions? As for how much they earn, they knew the wage structure when they entered the job if they feel it is not enough then they should not have taken the seat.

I would expect to be sacked if I was breaking the rules on expenses, would you not?

[DAM]

If we are are to discuss personal incomes that would be rather unfair on the high and low paid ones in this discussion, as the level of personal income does not make a point any more/less valid.

The salary for an MP is very low for the given occupation and is earned by many in the oil industry/financial industry/etc.

Expense claims, to me, have no bearing what so ever on a persons ability to carry out their duties.

I offer you the the choice of two surgeons to operate on your child, one has however been found to be heavy handed at claiming expenses and the other has not claimed at all. Which is your choice to carry out the critical operation. One has an income of ?147000 plus his high expenses, the other is earning ?70000.

Do I hear the cry go up 'Sack him for taking expenses from the public purse, I don't want HIM to operate on my child'??

I don't think so. Hypocrisy or what??

I'm involved with the oil industry and I don't get paid anywhere near an MP's salary, neither do I receive any expenses.

.

[absent friend]

If we are are to discuss personal incomes that would be rather unfair on the high and low paid ones in this discussion, as the level of personal income does not make a point any more/less valid.

The salary for an MP is very low for the given occupation and is earned by many in the oil industry/financial industry/etc.

Expense claims, to me, have no bearing what so ever on a persons ability to carry out their duties.

I offer you the the choice of two surgeons to operate on your child, one has however been found to be heavy handed at claiming expenses and the other has not claimed at all. Which is your choice to carry out the critical operation. One has an income of ?147000 plus his high expenses, the other is earning ?70000.

Do I hear the cry go up 'Sack him for taking expenses from the public purse, I don't want HIM to operate on my child'??

I don't think so. Hypocrisy or what??

I'm involved with the oil industry and I don't get paid anywhere near an MP's salary, neither do I receive any expenses.

.

Well Dam, I am not involved in the oil industry but enjoy the spin-off from the incomes coming from it.

l accept that I am not conversant with every income in that industry but the ones I do deal with are usually earning incomes comparable to the MPs.

Expenses for housing alone are very often in excess of ?30000 pa. In one instance, the air travel was by private jet ONLY!! Wife 'employed' to stay at home is another less than transparent expense. Months bonus in excess of MPs income shown on payslip!! I could go on....!

.

[Scarlet Pimple]

British voters must be a very tolerant lot to countenance such rottenness and theft without resorting to violence which seems to be the only way nowadays to get anyone in power's real attention.

Not that M.P's in this country are hugely different.Their salaries are $150,000 dollars per year plus a very generous

expense allowance plus all their office and staff costs met plus free flights back and forth across Canada and so on.

But you don't often hear of such cynical exploits and what amounts to barefaced amazing outright theft by them perpetrated against the taxpayer.

Do the words upright, integrity and honesty mean anything any more in today's society? In any country?

[absent friend]

British voters must be a very tolerant lot to countenance such rottenness and theft without resorting to violence which seems to be the only way nowadays to get anyone in power's real attention.

Not that M.P's in this country are hugely different.Their salaries are $150,000 dollars per year plus a very generous

expense allowance plus all their office and staff costs met plus free flights back and forth across Canada and so on.

But you don't often hear of such cynical exploits and what amounts to barefaced amazing outright theft by them perpetrated against the taxpayer.

Do the words upright, integrity and honesty mean anything any more in today's society? In any country?

I have already on here mentioned that this system we have, was agreed prior to the existing MPs coming into office, to reduce the cost on MPs leaving service. i.e if salary was left at a basic amount and expenses then taken in place of increased salary, the cost to the taxpayer would then be reduced.

Should the current annuity rate be 5% - the cost for each ?10,000 pa extra of pension is ?200000 lump sum, should this be required due to salary increase!!

Now this gives some idea of the inherent costs, to us, in severance pay, as a further amount must also be met for the lump sum severance payment.

This level of cost puts the bath tub stopper and even the moat cleaning into perspective!!

I am not agreeing with the excess claims, like flipping, but you can see where keeping income down by allowing expenses to be fudged, would make sense if you were an employer, which of course we are!

.