I don't know if anyone outside the UK is aware (or is aware and still gives a proverbial defecation), but for the last ten years or so (it feels like), the Daily Telegraph has been publishing details of our MPs' expense claims.

Some of them are funny (moat repairs and duck houses, anyone?), some really rather dodgy to the point of being fraudulent (like claiming mortgage interest for a mortgage that had been paid off), and some are really rather reasonable.  For some reason, this has been *the* main news story for the last couple of weeks, and has led to some of the most hypocritical humbuggery I think I've ever seen in print or heard on the radio.  It has also caused the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons (so some good has come out of it after all - he wasn't up to the job in the first place), the "impending" resignation of a dozen MPs so far (note that they're all talking about standing down at the next election so that they can still get their pay-off, which they wouldn't if they did the honourable thing and resigned *now*) and a rise in the circulation of the Telegraph by tens of thousands a day.

But...

One thing the Telegraph has been very scathing about: MPs changing the designation of their first and second homes (they can claim expenses for a second home near to Westminster if their constituency is outside London) to maximise what they can claim or minimise capital gains tax (you don't pay capital gains on your main residence, but do on second homes).  Yet only last year, the Telegraph's "Money" supplement was telling people that to minimize their tax liabilities, they should do exactly that - declare to the tax man that whichever home they're selling is their primary residence.  But somehow it's wrong if MPs are following their advice.

One minister (I think it was Harriet Harman, but I'm not sure) stood up in the house and wittered on about it being a collective shame, and that all MPs were responsible.  Now, if I were one of the dozens (so far - it'll probably turn into hundreds once all the results are in) of MPs who have done nothing at all wrong, who has been completely honest in all his/her expenses claims, that would *really* piss me off.

David Cameron has used it as a lever to get rid of some long-serving seat-fillers that he's been wanting to oust since becoming leader, and is claiming some kind of moral high ground as a result.  Sorry, David, you're just as much a hypocrite for that.

There's much talk about "people becoming more involved in politics" because of this.  Sorry, but that is just so much media bull, too: people aren't even remotely involved in politics, they're just annoyed by the way they've been taken for a lucrative ride by their elected representatives.  But... if people took more interest in the candidates they were voting for, we wouldn't have this shower in anyway.  I'm fairly sure that if enough people had come to listen to my local MP speak, they'd not have voted for him - he gets re-elected time after time simply because nobody knows who he is.  (Note that he's one of the most frugal of the bunch in terms of the expenses claimed - I didn't say he was greedy & venal like some of the rest, but he's simply an uncharismatic makeweight with nothing to swing a voting intention either way.)

To summarize, I guess what I'm saying is that we have a democracy, in theory.  We, the electorate, put these people into the positions of power and responsibility that they have milked.  Blaming the MPs for getting caught up in claiming for whatever they could is a cop-out - it's up to us to take enough of an interest to ensure that we elect the right people.  We certainly don't at the moment.

The thing that blows my mind is that Labour is basically further right in the socioeconomic scale than the Conservatives.  The Conservatives are actually pretty moderate now.

On the other hand, the Lib Dems and Labour are pro-EU integration while the Conservatives are anti-EU integration (for the most part).

The Greens seem to be the only party that is both on the socioeconomic left while still being anti-EU integration.  You guys really need more Greens in power.  You'd probably have less problems with this expense stuff from them, and you'd keep a safe distance from the Big Brother that the EU is becoming.

I don't know if anyone outside the UK is aware (or is aware and still gives a proverbial defecation), but for the last ten years or so (it feels like), the Daily Telegraph has been publishing details of our MPs' expense claims.


Nah! SuBo's been getting more column inches tenfold!  ;)


The thing that blows my mind is that Labour is basically further right in the socioeconomic scale than the Conservatives.  The Conservatives are actually pretty moderate now.

Ah! But they're in opposition at the mo'...

...put 'em in power and then you may see the true colours being unfurled!

The Greens seem to be the only party that is both on the socioeconomic left while still being anti-EU integration.  You guys really need more Greens in power.  You'd probably have less problems with this expense stuff from them, and you'd keep a safe distance from the Big Brother that the EU is becoming.


Like it or not, the Greens are, in effect, seen as a bit of a joke by the electorate...even in this eco-conscious age...


One thing the Telegraph has been very scathing about: MPs changing the designation of their first and second homes (they can claim expenses for a second home near to Westminster if their constituency is outside London) to maximise what they can claim or minimise capital gains tax (you don't pay capital gains on your main residence, but do on second homes).  Yet only last year, the Telegraph's "Money" supplement was telling people that to minimize their tax liabilities, they should do exactly that - declare to the tax man that whichever home they're selling is their primary residence.  But somehow it's wrong if MPs are following their advice.

When public money is primarily involved, then I'm sorry...it IS (morally) wrong!

One minister (I think it was Harriet Harman, but I'm not sure) stood up in the house and wittered on about it being a collective shame, and that all MPs were responsible.  Now, if I were one of the dozens (so far - it'll probably turn into hundreds once all the results are in) of MPs who have done nothing at all wrong, who has been completely honest in all his/her expenses claims, that would *really* piss me off.

'Fraid you're not gonna find many punters to share your feelings here...not for a while anyway!

Why? Well, when the general state of the nation's finances tells us we have to resort to a bit of belt tightening...who are the ones least likely to reach for their collective belt...let alone tighten it?

(Nothing new, I'll grant you...it's been happening for years, but Joe Pleb (who's feeling the pinch) is slowly but surely waking up to the fact!)

David Cameron has used it as a lever to get rid of some long-serving seat-fillers that he's been wanting to oust since becoming leader, and is claiming some kind of moral high ground as a result.  Sorry, David, you're just as much a hypocrite for that.

I'll give him the kudos that he appeared to be doing something rather sharpish...compare and contrast with Gordy, but Cameron's not made as much mileage out of this whole affair as he thought he was going to...

(Mind you, he got his Wisteria bush trimmed...so that's a bonus!)

To summarize, I guess what I'm saying is that we have a democracy, in theory.  We, the electorate, put these people into the positions of power and responsibility that they have milked.  Blaming the MPs for getting caught up in claiming for whatever they could is a cop-out - it's up to us to take enough of an interest to ensure that we elect the right people.  We certainly don't at the moment.


Oh, it's gonna take quite a few years for a rabidly-skeptical public to be re-convinced...and I can quite understand why!

Why are the Greens seen as a joke?  They seem pretty cool to me.

Why are the Greens seen as a joke?  They seem pretty cool to me.


I'll give them their due, they have attempted to distance themselves from the stereotypical tree-hugging, car-hating party, but as a rule, Joe Public's not convinced...

When public money is primarily involved, then I'm sorry...it IS (morally) wrong!

I don't see why it's morally any worse for one group of people to flip the designations on their first/second homes to maximize their profit than it is for others - both what the Torygraph recommended in their money pages and what MPs were doing resulted in the public purse losing out, yet one is recommended by the newspaper and the other is condemned.



'Fraid you're not gonna find many punters to share your feelings here...not for a while anyway!

I realize that, but on a rational rather than emotional analysis, I reckon I'm right: I do think a bit too much has been made of this, though.  I was chatting to a Polish chap yesterday, and his view was that the corruption revealed was on such a pathetic scale compared to his homeland that we ought to be happy about it :)


I'll give him the kudos that he appeared to be doing something rather sharpish...compare and contrast with Gordy, but Cameron's not made as much mileage out of this whole affair as he thought he was going to...

(Mind you, he got his Wisteria bush trimmed...so that's a bonus!)
Is that some kind of euphemism?


Oh, it's gonna take quite a few years for a rabidly-skeptical public to be re-convinced...and I can quite understand why!

Just as long as it makes them think about who they're electing for a change: the main problem with our whole democratic system is that the people doing the voting haven't cared who they have elected.

I don't see why it's morally any worse for one group of people to flip the designations on their first/second homes to maximize their profit than it is for others - both what the Torygraph recommended in their money pages and what MPs were doing resulted in the public purse losing out, yet one is recommended by the newspaper and the other is condemned.

I note what you say regarding that...and if people are using this legal 'loophole' with their own funds, then hey-ho, it's down to HMRC to put a clamp on it...

But what sticks in my craw is the fact that these well-heeled 'respectable' members of society are utilising this rule on the backs of the taxpayer...why?

I realize that, but on a rational rather than emotional analysis, I reckon I'm right: I do think a bit too much has been made of this, though.  I was chatting to a Polish chap yesterday, and his view was that the corruption revealed was on such a pathetic scale compared to his homeland that we ought to be happy about it :)

Yes, the sting has gone out of the story (Where are we now? Week 68?), but there's no denying the fact that it certainly has opened up a splendid can o' worms in the process...

Highly unlikely, but if the focus now shifted to MEP's, then I'd be 105% ecstatic!

Is that some kind of euphemism?

Hm...could be! I'll send my CV off to the Sun's headline writing department first thing tomorrow!

Just as long as it makes them think about who they're electing for a change: the main problem with our whole democratic system is that the people doing the voting haven't cared who they have elected.


Amen to that and perhaps it will...but it's just sweet to see the odd parasite squirm once in a while...

....and you'd keep a safe distance from the Big Brother that the EU is becoming.


Wise words, Macphisto.  England would be well served to stay out of the European Monolith.

The formation of Mega-Europe is the first step in feeding the ambitions of a ultranationalist politician from (fill in the country name here).

Ultimately an extreme politician will use the existence of Europe to blame all the ills of his country on it, and as a basis to put a violent end to the agreement. The only question is WHEN this will occur and from what country.

Ultimately an extreme politician will use the existence of Europe to blame all the ills of his country on it, and as a basis to put a violent end to the agreement. The only question is WHEN this will occur and from what country.

The US, 2017?

Seriously, the original raison d'etre of the EU was to make this sort of behaviour by one of its member states impossible in all practical ways: if they're all tangled up economically and politically, there's no real chance of one taking on the others militarily (which, when you consider the last few hundred years of Euro-history, is something it has achieved about as well as it could).  I think I've said this a few times here, but I'm fairly strongly Europhile, but I can't stand the implementation - it's a corruption-ridden kluge that isn't working; I'm not convinced that it can be reformed, though - not because of the institution itself, but because the member countries are unable to agree on where it should be going.  Would the UK be better off outside?  Who knows.. but there are dangers in those countries who don't like the direction pulling out unilaterally: it does make the prospect of war in Europe more likely again.


But what sticks in my craw is the fact that these well-heeled 'respectable' members of society are utilising this rule on the backs of the taxpayer...why?

Because they can... because it was explained to them (in a "gentlemen's club" sort of way) that these were allowances in lieu of more pay.. because overclaiming on expenses is seductive, especially when there's a "fees office" that behaves like its duty is to help MPs claim rather than a more strict policing of the claims being entered.


Highly unlikely, but if the focus now shifted to MEP's, then I'd be 105% ecstatic!

When the focus was on MEPs' expenses, it was a much softer focus... I think it's kind of ironic that half the UKIP MEPs had to resign for fiddling expenses, yet UKIP has profited hugely from the MPs expense brouhaha (to the extent of polling more votes than Labour, it looks like)

The US, 2017?

Seriously, the original raison d'etre of the EU was to make this sort of behaviour by one of its member states impossible in all practical ways: if they're all tangled up economically and politically, there's no real chance of one taking on the others militarily (which, when you consider the last few hundred years of Euro-history, is something it has achieved about as well as it could).  I think I've said this a few times here, but I'm fairly strongly Europhile, but I can't stand the implementation - it's a corruption-ridden kluge that isn't working; I'm not convinced that it can be reformed, though - not because of the institution itself, but because the member countries are unable to agree on where it should be going.  Would the UK be better off outside?  Who knows.. but there are dangers in those countries who don't like the direction pulling out unilaterally: it does make the prospect of war in Europe more likely again.

Entangling alliances did cause WW1.

But what sticks in my craw ....

What exactly IS a craw?  ???

Entangling alliances did cause WW1.

But the whole point of the EU is that *everyone* is entangled in the same alliance, not each country having a whole set of bilateral agreements with a handful of other European countries.  If all of Western Europe are enmeshed in the same net, the odds on any of them starting a war with any of the others is zero.


What exactly IS a craw?  ???

What a Chinese clab has?

(IIRC, it's your stomach... if you say something sticks in your craw, it's akin to saying it gives you a tummy-ache.. though that might just be a gut reaction)

Craw

I think my attitude towards the EU is much like philbo's.  I like the idea of a common currency, freedom of travel etc but at the moment there still seems to be too much option to veto anything and/or ignore the laws the EU makes.

I like the idea of a common currency, freedom of travel etc but at the moment there still seems to be too much option to veto anything and/or ignore the laws the EU makes.

With the problem being that nearly all the EU countries choose to veto/ignore based solely on national interest: France more than most talks the "good European" talk, but walks a completely Franco-centric walk.

But the whole point of the EU is that *everyone* is entangled in the same alliance, not each country having a whole set of bilateral agreements with a handful of other European countries.  If all of Western Europe are enmeshed in the same net, the odds on any of them starting a war with any of the others is zero.

If that's how far you have to go to avoid war, that's kind of sad.  Sovereignty is a more practical and safe method, IMHO.

The more you centralize authority, the easier it is to abuse.

What exactly IS a craw?  ???


Something belonging to a Japanese robster?

(solly, uh, I mean, sorry)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_rabbit.gif



Because they can... because it was explained to them (in a "gentlemen's club" sort of way) that these were allowances in lieu of more pay.. because overclaiming on expenses is seductive, especially when there's a "fees office" that behaves like its duty is to help MPs claim rather than a more strict policing of the claims being entered.



I thought exactly the same thing, "because they can"!  

Yeah, let 'em buy their own duck houses!

The politician who's loudest about stopping the government waste is the one with his hand deepest in your back pocket.
::)

If that's how far you have to go to avoid war, that's kind of sad.  Sovereignty is a more practical and safe method, IMHO.

Sovereignty a practical and safe method of avoiding war?  What planet are you living on, Mac?



The more you centralize authority, the easier it is to abuse.

That's part of the problem with the EU: too many people wanting power centralized (for themselves?  that would be the cynic's view)

A few years ago, the buzzword was "subsidiarity" - the idea of devolving decision-making power to the lowest level possible.  Governments seemed to love the idea, until they started realizing that they'd actually be losing power to more local institutions (like councils), and lost interest.

Sovereignty a practical and safe method of avoiding war?  What planet are you living on, Mac?


Sovereignty has worked pretty well for us.  Granted, we do have the most powerful military.

Sovereignty has worked pretty well for us.  Granted, we do have the most powerful military.

As a way of avoiding war??? I ask again: what planet are you on?

Tell that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada and the rest.

Sovereignty has to be either the biggest or the second biggest cause of war.

As a way of avoiding war??? I ask again: what planet are you on?

Tell that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada and the rest.

Sovereignty has to be either the biggest or the second biggest cause of war.


Ok, let me rephrase.  Sovereignty is a good way to avoid being invaded, not doing the invading.  I'd rather be the invader than the invaded.

With the way the EU is headed, you're becoming a corporate collective that would appear to have an interest in disintegrating your personal liberties.  Also, the closer we move toward a one world government, the worse off the world becomes.

Again, the more you centralize power, the easier it is to abuse.  Decentralization and devolution are the best things to pursue in the interest of making branches of government more accountable to individuals and less manipulated by corporations.

Sovereignty isn't a good way of avoiding being invaded, from a historical perspective - saying it works for the US is irrelevant.  I was talking about the likelihood of war, whichever side you're on - until the EU was set up, I'm not sure there had been a period of 50 years in Europe where one of the European nations wasn't at war with one of the others.


I'm not going to disagree with you about centralization of power: the only people who think it's a good idea are those centrally who want to wield it... and it doesn't take a central European government to want to "disintegrate" personal liberties, either.