It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'We were told: Go and spend it, boys,' says MP who claimed £310,000 for his holiday home

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by berenike
 


The other expense to consider when looking at the costs of these second homes is the security detail. There are many MPs that receive a security detail when they arrive at their second home.

Having this apartment block for MPs would dramatically reduce the cost of providing security and would indeed make the act of securing MPs far more effective.

[edit on 29/3/2009 by skibtz]


Of course, if they were running the country properly they might not have such a dire need for security systems


I remember when Tony Blair got his new house, it was just round the corner from the vet where I used to take my dog.

There were one or two armed policemen stationed on his doorstep. Imagine that, what a waste of a man's time.

One of them was nice though, he gave the dog a lovely smile. I think we were the most interesting thing he'd seen all morning.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by berenike]




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
They DO NOT deserve these expenses...
They are an utter waste of tax payers money...and peoples time and effort..

Want to know what they really worry about in our British government?
Well, check this...

The most recent such report, published by the Catering Committee in 2002, concentrated on the severe pressure on certain refreshment facilities at peak times, investigated the causes of the pressure and identified possible solutions.[12] Having received the results of a survey of usage of the facilities from the RD, the Report identified overcrowding and queuing in the two most popular venues, the Terrace and Debate cafeterias, as the areas of greatest concern for most users of the service. The new facilities in Portcullis House had recently been opened (December 2000) and the Committee noted that such was their popularity they had "increased custom in real terms rather than simply diverting it from other outlets".[13]

18. The RD was able to implement only some of the Committee's recommendations aimed at improving existing outlets and services to alleviate this demand: changes were made to the layout of the Terrace Cafeteria serving areas; a Members' lunch buffet was introduced into the small Dining Room; menus were updated in the newly refurbished Bellamy's cafeteria; and access was granted to House staff and Members' staff to the Strangers' Dining Room on Thursdays. However, we have heard from the RD that a significant number of recommendations could not be taken forward:

a) The Press Gallery withdrew an offer that access to the Press Gallery Cafeteria be extended to other passholders, citing concerns over confidentiality.

b) The servery counter in Bellamy's Club Room proved uneconomical and could not be retained.

c) The Serjeant at Arms Department stated they were unable to identify any suitable sites close to communal seating areas in the Norman Shaw buildings for the installation of vending machines.

d) Following the subsidy review (see below, paragraphs 19-23), the RD was unable to take forward projects recommended by the Catering Committee due to the investment costs or additional staff requirement needed to operate the proposed services.[14] These projects included the replacement of the Terrace Marquee with a permanent structure providing a restaurant or brasserie for Members, the installation of a sandwich counter to replace the Souvenir Kiosk in 1 Parliament St and the installation of a made-to-order sandwich bar in Portcullis House.

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com...

Still think they deserve expenses????

And here is the reality of how the people who vote for these swines live...

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the issue of housing subsidy. I look forward to the Minister's response to our short debate on important issues that are of concern to my constituents, particularly those who pay rent to my local council.

Tenants in my constituency want a decent home, but at present far too many of them do not have one. I shall illustrate what I mean. Recently, I had the opportunity of visiting tenants on the Chaucer estate in my constituency. Tenants on the estate, especially in Chaucer house, showed me the water coming into their flats through the windows, the electrical, plumbing and heating systems that need to be renewed, the roofs that need repairing and the poor lighting and security systems that need replacing. Tenants on the Collingwood estate, especially in Balaam house, need much of the same work done to their block. Very simply, when it rains they want the rain to stay outside and not to come into their flats.

www.theyworkforyou.com...

Still think they deserve expenses???

I think not...



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by berenike
 


The other expense to consider when looking at the costs of these second homes is the security detail. There are many MPs that receive a security detail when they arrive at their second home.


This is a genuine bugbear for me as it applies to the head of my local council. There was some kind of review a couple of years ago and apparently he has more money allocated to him for security than many name MPs - certainly those with local, nearby constituencies. Apparently, this was due to a bomb hoax many years ago, which interestingly enough was never fully investigated or explained. A bit like the serial arson attacks the destroyed properties in the way of council-planned 'regeneration initiatives'.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 




Yeah - it's one of the basics of business - if there isn't a need - create one!

The people will not take this fleecing for too much longer - especially not when the usual public apathy is starting to crumble away under the weight of the financial crisis.

[edit on 29/3/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


One of the reasons for the general state of apathy in this country (and the wider western world as a whole) was a general feeling of comfort brought on by "wealth", coupled with an opinion that politics is "boring" or doesn't affect them.

Hopefully this crunch will wake a few of them up and make them realise that politics does indeed affect them and in profound ways.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by skibtz
 


One of the reasons for the general state of apathy in this country (and the wider western world as a whole) was a general feeling of comfort brought on by "wealth", coupled with an opinion that politics is "boring" or doesn't affect them.


This, when I hear people reel out this line as if they somehow live in a bubble, infuriates me. There seems to be a massive disconnect between them moaning about how much cigarettes, beer, food, utility bills, 'poll tax', mortgages and so on costs them and the world of politics. As if politics has no real influence and everything is run by fairies or something.

And for all the whinging and tutting they do all year, when the time comes to actually make their voice heard, they've got something far more important to do than vote. When people make the effort to speak on their behalf as with current demonstrations, they're just idiots on the television, apparently.


Hopefully this crunch will wake a few of them up and make them realise that politics does indeed affect them and in profound ways.


I don't think it will. Sadly, I really think it's too late. Unless of course, there's a 'phone in' vote for something, as that's the only time anyone really seems to give a # any more.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

As if politics has no real influence and everything is run by fairies or something.



Lol. Thats classic.

I agree. I also dislike when these same people who cant be bothered to educate themselves regarding political cause and effect beg their government for draconian intrusions into their privacy and then when the policy hit them as well as the "bad people" they intended it to hit, start moaning about "overlords" "PTB" and the "Illuminati."

Never making the connection that while in their own mind, there is this "line" between themselves and "wrongdoers," (be they criminal or abusers of the dole) the state itself does not discriminate between its citizens so sharply. You vote for a policy that restricts freedoms hoping it will punish those you disapprove of, odds are, that restriction of freedom will hit you at some point, often in a way you did not foresee.

You are right, the government isnt run by fairies. Or the Illuminati either. It is run by selfish short sighted people voted in by selfish short sighted people. And we get precisely what we ask for. We just dont really take the time to understand the ramifications of what we are asking when we ask.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
We just dont really take the time to understand the ramifications of what we are asking when we ask.


To be asked would be nice


It doesn't work that way for us unfortunately.

We vote based on pre-election manifestos only to have those promises broken once the party is in power.

I was not asked to vote on whether I wanted to bail out the banks, allow flawed expenses systems to exist or bring in the ID card yet all of these has been approved by the government.

If any of the above had been put to the public vote then I would be surprised if any of them would have been approved by the public.

The party in power makes these decisions for us because we are too stupid to understand the finer points. Apparently.

[edit on 29/3/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
We vote based on pre-election manifestos only to have those promises broken once the party is in power.



In Japan, parties are obligated by Law to honour their manifesto pledges. Same should apply here, then we wouldn't have things like the "tuition fees" con that was promised in the 2005 manifesto as not going to happen, then brought in using Scots MP's (who weren't affected) to tip the vote in Parliament.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


Yeah, I agree. We dont actually get to vote issue by issue either, but I dont know if I believe it would be better if we did.

I am constantly amazed and astounded at;

1) the unwillingness of people to go seek out facts regarding issues that effect them

2)the ease with which we can be convinced to sell ourselves into slavery

3)our continual desire to blame everyone else for 1 and 2.

Lol.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


I agree with most of what you said, however I have to point out that the bankers are not the ones keeping the Labour party in power.

The general public of the UK has been stupid enough to vote in the current government for the past decade. We only have "ourselves" to blame for this (though admittedly only 25% of the public voted for Labour, so it may be the electoral system that is at fault)



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Indeed the system is at fault. labour used to campaign for a PR system, but now they benefit from the FPTP system, they won't change it.

For example, when you have a constituency of 30,000 people with three main parties, you only need 10,001 people to vote for you and you get in, even if the other two candidates got 10,000 votes each.

The system blows...



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Quite why they don't do it is beyond me, except for the obvious gravy train killing aspect of it. It would also provide jobs as well!


Because at the moment, only MPs themselves could approve this and most of them wouldn't like it


I think it's a decent idea though. Find some land close to Parliament, somewhere around Westminster/Pimlico or somewhere and build the apartments. I don't mind Ministers getting a separate building closer to Whitehall, since I imagine it is a demanding job (and some ministers get a home as part of their job anyway, e.g. the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary.)

No need to build apartments for Inner London MPs, either. Problem solved.

Although Gordon Brown has raised the prospect of scrapping the second home allowance altogether (See here) so presumably they'll need to find somewhere for MPs to stay anyway. I can understand if you represent a constituency in Belfast or Aberdeen... you're going to need a place to stay in London.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Although Gordon Brown has raised the prospect of scrapping the second home allowance altogether (See here).


More moneyman fiddling no doubt - let's see:

200 - number of days at work in London requiring overnight stay

£80 - cost of hotel room (London has an average of approx. £110)
£25 - daily food/drink allowance (breakfast, Lunch and dinner)
£10 - daily travel allowance (underground/buses/taxis)

£115 - total per day

£23k - new total per year (based on 200 days)

£23k - current allowance

Obviously we are at the early stages but if Gordon plans on making a difference he has a lot of haggling to do!

[edit on 30/3/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


A PR system combined with the resolution of the West Lothian Question via the cessation of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster... ahh wouldn't that be great.

Labour would simply never get back in. Ever. (Unless Cameron turns into a cannibal and eats a small child on TV, and even then it would probably be a hung parliament
)

[edit on 30-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by stumason
 


A PR system combined with the resolution of the West Lothian Question via the cessation of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster... ahh wouldn't that be great.

Labour would simply never get back in. Ever. (Unless Cameron turns into a cannibal and eats a small child on TV, and even then it would probably be a hung parliament
)

[edit on 30-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]


I fail to see how creating a perpetual Tory state would help matters. Cast your mind back to the 1990s... remember how Major's government was mired in sleaze too? Like I said, this is a general problem with politics. To think this is something new, or to believe it's confined to Labour, is ludicrous. We've had Smith and McNulty from Labour... but we've also had Spelman and Conway from the Conservatives. It infects at least the two main parties, and almost certainly the Lib Dems too (though I can't think of any recent incidents off the top of my head.)

Another piece of news. You might recall from one of my previous posts that I said MPs were to publish detailed breakdowns of their expenses owing to a Freedom of Information request. Apparently they can now edit their claims before they are published (The Times.)

Infuriating or what? Any MP who does edit their expenses will shoot themselves in the foot. Every time they try to cover this up, it makes things worse in the long run.

[edit on 30/3/09 by Ste2652]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


True, but I've given up hope.

The Tories aren't beacons of good governance, but they're a damn sight better than Labour. The lesser of two evils, you might say.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Labour are a lot worse than the conservatives ever were!The thing is when a Tory gets caught out there fired or put in prison,with this arogant mob we now have in charge there normaly given golden hankshakes and promoted:p

Look at Keith Vaz,what the hell is he doing in the spotlight again!Peter Mandelson is another vile corrupt man who doesnt deserve to be called a Lord!
Prescot-Punched some bloke who throw an egg at him,and kept his job as deputy leader!Personaly I think the police should have let the egg throwing Mullet man beat seven shades out of that fat bore rather than drag him off Prescot!
Geoffrey Robinson-cocain!
Arogant Blunket the Visa Nanny scam artist
Ron Davis-the Cottaging badger spotter!lol
I could carry on writing names for ages when related to public expenses!

Yeahh I agree no party is perfect,but the sooner we replace this motley crew of con artists out of office the better!

I hope the next election sees LOADS of Labour rank and file MP's losing their seats-And Alistair Camble hit hard too.Why the BBC bends over backwards to promote this dispicable little man is beyond me,considering how he bullied them with the Kelly inccident and demanded heads to roll over the sexed up documents for WMD's!

Also lets get rid of the word SPIN,there not spinning their liars!I also object to being told every morning by the media what the labour party will say later in the day!Let me find out when they actualy say it!Of course the Labour party want to see what the reaction to their speeches are before they say them so they can change them if focus groups tell them too!

Shame we have to wait so long for an election!Our unelected leader Brown doesnt deserve to speak for us on the world stage,and he certainly doesnt deserve to hold this countries purse string any longer!

And as for that labour caravan thief mentioned at the top of this story by the OP-I think we should force him to live it in 24/7!



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
True, but I've given up hope.

The Tories aren't beacons of good governance, but they're a damn sight better than Labour. The lesser of two evils, you might say.


I don't think either the Conservatives or Labour are fundamentally corrupt. There are good people on both sides who wouldn't dream of abusing their position. The thing is, when a party has been in office for a long time it tends to get dragged down by sleaze and takes the public for granted. It's happening to Labour now, and it happened to the Conservatives after the 1992 election. And again, it would be totally wrong to suggest that all the Tories in the 1990s were corrupt. I'm sure there were plenty of Labour MPs who were up to no good too, but the spotlight focused on the Tories because they were in government at the time. Labour are experiencing this at the moment; the media are far more interested in stories about the government than the opposition. Take the video clip of Eric Pickles that I posted claiming thousands of pounds for a second home in London (despite being a London MP), and contrast that to the Home Secretary's husband claiming £10 for... um... adult movies
. There's a lot more money involved with Pickles, but the media are (understandably) more interested in Jacqui Smith.

The problem is that there is a significant number of MPs who don't think twice before putting something on their expenses. This is compounded by the opacity of the system: We don't know what MPs have spent their money on, so there's no incentive for them to change. When these scandals come out, we know that most MPs will be kicked out at the next election (Conway, for example, would've almost certainly been kicked out of his seat at the next election had he chosen to stand after paying his son taxpayer's money for doing nothing.)

The system of expenses and wages for MPs needs:

- Transparency. It all has to be much more open.
- Independence. Setting and reviewing wages and expenses and drawing up rules has to be passed to an independent body.

If you implement those, I think the problem will diminish quite sharply.

I'm not sure if any of you heard, but on the news tonight there has been a report that a compilation of the expense claims of all MPs (before MPs have edited them) has been leaked, and someone is trying to sell it to the press for £300,000. It'll be interesting to see how this one develops.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


It's funny you should mention Pickles...


Police have dealt with an incident in Parliament involving guests attending a party thrown by the Conservative party chairman Eric Pickles.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics




 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join