But it still trailed in fourth behind the missing plane, air pollution and Ukraine.
Coming behind those three in still quite impressive. Job done for Farage and Clegg but will the next Euro poll reflect changes ??
The debates were a total disaster for Clegg. Especially the second. I do not for a moment buy this LD spin that "even a loss is good publicity, we're only aiming for the europhile vote".
Clegg was dreadful - snooty, clumsy, unfunny, supercilious - as even europhiles and LD voters will have noted.
Strategically not the point.
Of course the yellow peril would have preferred to win the debates but the priority was to add a few points to their Euro polling from those of the one third that were pro EU disposed.
They need to edge to 12% to retain most of the Euro seats.
Apart from Kippers, and maybe that 0.3% of Brits that are ardent hardcore Euro-Federalists, I don't believe anyone votes in the EU elections based on their attitude to the EU per se. They vote (if they vote at all, and most don't) according to standard party loyalty, or whether they want to give such and such a party a mid-term kicking - and thereby send a message.
Clegg's performance in debate 2 was so bad it will have discouraged LD loyalists from voting, and encouraged those who want to give the Libs a kicking.
As if often the case, my old mucker, you see politics as either a total disaster or an utter triumph. Farage and Clegg were fishing in very different ponds and for Clegg the mission was to take hold of the IN camp for as long as Dave and Ed left the field empty.
In doing so the LibDems hope to hold the tide against them in their historically worst performing elections and even edge up a tad and avoid a potential near wipe out that is likely if they poll 8% or so.
Over the two debates, despite you view, almost a third of the punters saw Clegg as the winner - far greater than the 10% or so the polls advise us intend to vote for them in the Euro elections. The LibDem aim is to peel away a couple more points of that third to avoid an awful result.
But it still trailed in fourth behind the missing plane, air pollution and Ukraine.
Coming behind those three in still quite impressive. Job done for Farage and Clegg but will the next Euro poll reflect changes ??
The debates were a total disaster for Clegg. Especially the second. I do not for a moment buy this LD spin that "even a loss is good publicity, we're only aiming for the europhile vote".
Clegg was dreadful - snooty, clumsy, unfunny, supercilious - as even europhiles and LD voters will have noted.
Strategically not the point.
Of course the yellow peril would have preferred to win the debates but the priority was to add a few points to their Euro polling from those of the one third that were pro EU disposed.
They need to edge to 12% to retain most of the Euro seats.
Clegg's performance in debate 2 was so bad it will have discouraged LD loyalists from voting, and encouraged those who want to give the Libs a kicking.
Apparently the LDs have been using the debates to gee up their activists, and squeeze their spam list for donations.
'The whole trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing.'
Are you serious?
'The cost of sending a delegation led by First Minister Alex Salmond to the Ryder Cup golf tournament in America was almost £470,000, the Scottish government has said.'
Ans Alex Salmond had 2 nights in a decent hotel in among that , what is your point , should have stayed in a hostel. Go check Cameron's travel expenses around the world you dullard. The man was promoting Scotland , only self serving labour cretinous troughers could have a problem with that.
'The whole trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing.'
Are you serious?
'The cost of sending a delegation led by First Minister Alex Salmond to the Ryder Cup golf tournament in America was almost £470,000, the Scottish government has said.'
Ans Alex Salmond had 2 nights in a decent hotel in among that , what is your point , should have stayed in a hostel. Go check Cameron's travel expenses around the world you dullard. The man was promoting Scotland , only self serving labour cretinous troughers could have a problem with that.
His point is that you were wrong in your statement that "The whole trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing."
Sigh. You are stubbornly refusing to do anything other than assume, purely out of prejudice, that she must be guilty. I hope to God you never serve on a jury - in fact I'm beginning to doubt the whole jury system, given the fact that you are hardly alone in your dogged refusal to consider evidence.
If only it were a properly-directed jury that decided this matter, rather than a kangaroo committee of MPs.
Sigh. You are stubbornly refusing to do anything other than assume, purely out of prejudice, that she must be guilty. I hope to God you never serve on a jury - in fact I'm beginning to doubt the whole jury system, given the fact that you are hardly alone in your dogged refusal to consider evidence.
FWIW, what you describe as "The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer" was considered in detail by the Committee, who concluded (para 56):
Even though the figures available are incomplete, we are satisfied that there is sufficient independent evidence to support Mrs Miller’s assertion that up until the year 2008–09 she did not claim for the interest on any increases to her mortgage after her election
They further accepted her submission that the only overclaim was subsequent to 2009 and was an inadvertent one because she failed to adjust properly for the fall in interest rates (that's the £5,800 she has had to pay back). There was no 'fact' remotely similar to what you state.
As for your last point - just ridiculous. If you are going to define 'Cameron's mates' as any Conservative MP, including a comprehensive-school educated female LSE graduate, then that says more about your anti-Cameron prejudice than anything else.
*Sighs*
The Commons committee rejected the result of an independent enquiry but still couldn't reduce the amount Miller had to pay back below £5,800 and still insisted that she apologised. If you can't see that this affair looks dreadful for Cameron, the Conservatives and Westminster politicians in general, I can't help you.
The end of the tax year is upon us so why don't you "mistakenly" underestimate your tax liability by £5,800 then let us know how you get on when HMRC find out.
"I invited television viewers to come and join UKIP's People's Army.
I really meant it.
And I am delighted to report that the people are answering the rallying call in record numbers - more than 1,000 new membership applications so far and more flooding in by the hour."
Also it turns out that booze is free, 24/7, throughout the ship.
DO THEY REALISE WHO THEY ARE DEALING WITH.
It'll be pish weak lager, and crappy spirits, probably turps labeled as vodka. Enjoy!
Not necessarily, Mr. Stopper. A chum is just back from an all inclusive Saga jolly to Mexico and the all inclusive 24/7 booze was the real thing, branded spirits and all.
'The whole trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing.'
Are you serious?
'The cost of sending a delegation led by First Minister Alex Salmond to the Ryder Cup golf tournament in America was almost £470,000, the Scottish government has said.'
Ans Alex Salmond had 2 nights in a decent hotel in among that , what is your point , should have stayed in a hostel. Go check Cameron's travel expenses around the world you dullard. The man was promoting Scotland , only self serving labour cretinous troughers could have a problem with that.
His point is that you were wrong in your statement that "The whole trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing."
I understand that but why question the First Minister staying 2 nights in a decent hotel. Labour also quoted ridiculous figures of what the hotel cost. Only Labour troughers could carp years later at someone getting jobs and benefits for Scotland. With all the poverty and foodbanks in the country , Labour are wasting a fortune on a 2 night hotel stay. pathetic. Explains why they are crap, bunch of no hopers.
PS, his pathetic labelling of Alex Salmond as "Salmoan" means that he is a cretin and does not deserve a decent reply in the first place, if he is not a spotty youth he should be ashamed to be so childish.
So it'd be a bit odd if they then serve Lidl own brand wifebeater. But who knows.
Interestingly (to me, and no one else) the other day I worked out that I've had at least a quarter of a million quids' worth of free holidays, in the last five years.
It's dark and lonely work, but someone has to do it.
*waits for Fate to take revenge*
Is it really that much fun when you have to go alone?
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
The Commons committee rejected the result of an independent enquiry but still couldn't reduce the amount Miller had to pay back below £5,800 and still insisted that she apologised. If you can't see that this affair looks dreadful for Cameron, the Conservatives and Westminster politicians in general, I can't help you.
The end of the tax year is upon us so why don't you "mistakenly" underestimate your tax liability by £5,800 then let us know how you get on when HMRC find out.
When did I ever say that it doesn't look dreadful for Cameron, the Conservatives and Westminster politicians in general? I think the Committee were quite right to criticise Maria Miller, who has been arrogant and careless.
That doesn't alter the fact that the main complaint against her was (rightly) rejected.
As for your last point, in any business I've been involved in, if someone makes a genuine mistake in their expenses, which is subsequently discovered, and where there is no suggestion of dishonesty, they'll be asked to pay it back, and that will be the end of the matter. Do you know of any exceptions to this general approach?
Sigh. You are stubbornly refusing to do anything other than assume, purely out of prejudice, that she must be guilty. I hope to God you never serve on a jury - in fact I'm beginning to doubt the whole jury system, given the fact that you are hardly alone in your dogged refusal to consider evidence.
Yes, it's very difficult to trust the people when they don't have die-hard loyalty to the Conservative party, right?
FWIW, what you describe as "The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer" was considered in detail by the Committee, who concluded (para 56):
Even though the figures available are incomplete, we are satisfied that there is sufficient independent evidence to support Mrs Miller’s assertion that up until the year 2008–09 she did not claim for the interest on any increases to her mortgage after her election
They further accepted her submission that the only overclaim was subsequent to 2009 and was an inadvertent one because she failed to adjust properly for the fall in interest rates (that's the £5,800 she has had to pay back). There was no 'fact' remotely similar to what you state.
You mean her fellow MPs were satisfied? Despite big holes in the records she supplied as part of her generally uncooperative approach to the inquiry? The same MPs whereby expense abuse was rampant among them? The ones that Nick Palmer has openly admitted rallied round each other against the public outrage? Your level of trust in authority knows no bounds. I guess it's the same logic that says if the government claims there's a good reason for watching private webcam conversations without a warrant, there must be a good reason.
As for your last point - just ridiculous. If you are going to define 'Cameron's mates' as any Conservative MP, including a comprehensive-school educated female LSE graduate, then that says more about your anti-Cameron prejudice than anything else.
No, I mean "Cameron's mates" as a woman he appointed to two ministerial positions, has worked alongside for several years and has steadfastly refused to remove, even attacking journalists that question the thing. I don't see what your point is supposed to be here - that Cameron can't be friends with anyone that isn't male, an Oxbridge grad or went to public school?
"I invited television viewers to come and join UKIP's People's Army.
I really meant it.
And I am delighted to report that the people are answering the rallying call in record numbers - more than 1,000 new membership applications so far and more flooding in by the hour."
Ooo this comment sets a new low for UKIP sloganeering:
"L" is for Liberal is for LIAR "L" is for Labour is for LIAR "C" is for Conservative is for CONMAN "U" is for UKIP is for UNITED And UKIP is the only Party that is a UNITED Truth Party.
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Perhaps there are other sad folk out there who did the same but I have just read the MM judgement.
What emerges is that:
a) hers were well within the bounds of allowable expenses apart from a short period when interest rates changed rapidly downwards when she overclaimed and hence the repayment; and
b) The designation of her primary and secondary homes were in order; and
c) Her parents had been living with her for years so why on earth should she have changed that once she became an MP; and
d) Her claims were low enough such that if there had been an adjustment to exclude her parents' portion of mortgage costs they remained within the allowable figure; and
d) She is evidently an obstreperous, ghastly, solipsistic little sh1t.
'Ans Alex Salmond had 2 nights in a decent hotel in among that , what is your point , should have stayed in a hostel. '
Clearly the hotel that the rest of the delegation stayed at was just for plebs and not good enough for Salmoan.
Salmoan troughing OK ,Miller troughing bad.
'Although the breakdown shows more than £80,000 was spent on accommodation, it refers only to a hotel near the tournament venue used by officials and not the five-star Peninsula Hotel where it is understood Mr and Mrs Salmond stayed.
The latter is popular with celebrities such as Jay – Z, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston but is much further away from the Medinah Country Club, where the Ryder Cup was staged. '
So it'd be a bit odd if they then serve Lidl own brand wifebeater. But who knows.
Interestingly (to me, and no one else) the other day I worked out that I've had at least a quarter of a million quids' worth of free holidays, in the last five years.
It's dark and lonely work, but someone has to do it.
*waits for Fate to take revenge*
Is it really that much fun when you have to go alone?
Actually on this trip I won't be entirely alone: it's a group press trip, and I vaguely know one or two of the other journos already. And when I move on to Perth (where I am doing another assignment) I will be joined by my Aussie daughter and her babymother.
But yes sometimes the loneliness can be seriously tough - but then that forces you to interact with locals (which is usually a good thing). And on the other hand, it is possibly the best job in the world.
How did you get to this point, Sean? Was it a conscious decision to get into travel journalism, or was it by chance, a case of being in the right place at the right time?
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Tell your butler to scan the sea for any bits of a Malaysian airliner - and be sure to have him tell no-one but you, for the scoop of the year....
I understand that but why question the First Minister staying 2 nights in a decent hotel. Labour also quoted ridiculous figures of what the hotel cost. Only Labour troughers could carp years later at someone getting jobs and benefits for Scotland. With all the poverty and foodbanks in the country , Labour are wasting a fortune on a 2 night hotel stay. pathetic. Explains why they are crap, bunch of no hopers.
blockquote>
I'm afraid our classmates are going to have a lot more fun [edit: from their point of view!] with you round the side of the bike sheds. Mr S is over in in the States drumming up jobs and exports, and giving a few lectures/interviews as well to such folk as the Wall Street Journal and Glasgow Caledonian's campus in NYC (which would at least balance their lending Mr C a lectern for his lovebombing speech ... remember that?).
Labour don't approve. Hmm, surprise surprise. I don't recall them disapproving of Mr McConnell going to Tartan Day festivities in NYC ... but those folk would disapprove of a bear taking a dump in the wood if it had a Yes sticker on its back ...
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Also it's "ultraluxurious", and they give me a butler and endless free wine.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
trip for all the government delegation was less than her troughing."
I understand that but why question the First Minister staying 2 nights in a decent hotel. Labour also quoted ridiculous figures of what the hotel cost. Only Labour troughers could carp years later at someone getting jobs and benefits for Scotland. With all the poverty and foodbanks in the country , Labour are wasting a fortune on a 2 night hotel stay. pathetic. Explains why they are crap, bunch of no hopers.
blockquote>
I'm afraid our classmates are going to have a lot more fun with you round the side of the bike sheds. Mr S is over in in the States drumming up jobs and exports, and giving a few lectures/interviews as well to such folk as the Wall Street Journal and Glasgow Caledonian's campus in NYC (which would at least balance their lending Mr C a lectern for his lovebombing speech ... remember that?).
Labour don't approve. Hmm, surprise surprise. I don't recall them disapproving of Mr McConnell going to Tartan Day festivities in NYC ... but those folk would disapprove of a bear taking a dump in the wood if it had a Yes sticker on its back ...
Yes , wonder if he justified the £1M spent on that trip
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Which points are you expecting me to respond to? Did she, or did she not, take a loan out on a house whereby the interest is being subsidised by the taxpayer? What happened to the missing records of the interest on that matter?
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Which points are you expecting me to respond to? Did she, or did she not, take a loan out on a house whereby the interest is being subsidised by the taxpayer? What happened to the missing records of the interest on that matter?
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
She didn't take a loan out on a house, which was subsidised by the taxpayer. She took a loan out and did not claim for it.
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Which points are you expecting me to respond to? Did she, or did she not, take a loan out on a house whereby the interest is being subsidised by the taxpayer? What happened to the missing records of the interest on that matter?
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
She didn't take a loan out on a house, which was subsidised by the taxpayer. She took a loan out and did not claim for it.
She didn't claim for her mortgage? Are you serious? What do you think she was originally ordered to pay back £45k for?
By the way, Richard Nabavi, I guess when David Cameron offers his "very warm support", that doesn't indicated friendship at all? I always offer "warmth" to my acquaintances, don't you?
Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the Editor of The Telegraph was involved in meetings with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson.
"Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors' meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about," said Miss Hindley.
Miss Hindley also said the reporter should discuss the issue with "people a little higher up your organisation".
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Which points are you expecting me to respond to? Did she, or did she not, take a loan out on a house whereby the interest is being subsidised by the taxpayer? What happened to the missing records of the interest on that matter?
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
She didn't take a loan out on a house, which was subsidised by the taxpayer. She took a loan out and did not claim for it.
She didn't claim for her mortgage? Are you serious? What do you think she was originally ordered to pay back £45k for?
By the way, Richard Nabavi, I guess when David Cameron offers his "very warm support", that doesn't indicated friendship at all? I always offer "warmth" to my acquaintances, don't you?
She didn't claim for costs on the increased mortgage. She claimed for mortgage costs for the mortgage on her house which, as it was a revolving facility, took some untangling. Manifestly not aided by her attitude to the Commissioner.
And my final point on the matter: how believable is it that someone who claimed 99.87% of the maximum possible mortgage claim over the five years between 2005 and 2009, just "forgot" to reduce the amount she claimed as her interest costs fell? Does someone that manages to claim 99.87 of expenses sound like someone who just isn't very well aware of the rules or how much they are claiming?
It really is amazing how nearly everything the political class does plays into Farage's hands.
Following on from the debates, having the front cover of The Times saying "Fury grows as expenses row minister clings to job" is just what he would have asked for.
The points raised by the Committee. The particular accusation that you have made, and the disagreement with the Commissioner's view on it, is dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 39.
Their analysis seems reasonable enough to me. At most it's a different interpretation of how the rules apply to what the Commissioner describes as 'Mrs Miller’s unusual situation'. Note also that the Commissioner's argument is based on a strict interpretation of the position of a comma in the rules.
Personally, I think the Committee's analysis makes more sense than the Commissioner's. You seem to disagree, but only because you've assumed before considering the arguments that the MPs must all by definition be crooks and the Committee not impartial.
It really is amazing how nearly everything the political class does plays into Farage's hands.
Following on from the debates, having the front cover of The Times saying "Fury grows as expenses row minister clings to job" is just what he would have asked for.
It's a good job there has been no Kipper troughing. Oh, wait....
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Which points are you expecting me to respond to? Did she, or did she not, take a loan out on a house whereby the interest is being subsidised by the taxpayer? What happened to the missing records of the interest on that matter?
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
I have never, ever, been able to understand how MPs could JUSTIFY being treated in any way to the level of one penny more than ordinary civil servants, never mind behave in ways that would rightly have got me demoted, sacked and/or reported to the polis if I tried them on when in public service. If they are servants of the public then they should behave like them. If they are not then ...
For instance, TFS got a £12 bill knocked back because it had an alcoholic drink on it that he hadn't known to separate out . But MPs have bars at work! Similar points can be made about lunch and dinner, and accommodation. And there is all the additional work-related income from companies, unions, etc. which they receive just for doing their job, with absolutely prima facie conflicts of interest. By contrast when I was a writer in my spare time I had to report every penny I received. If a piece was in any way related to my employer (as opposed to being merely in the same subject field) I paid over every penny rather than avoid arguments.
[Edit: They have a better pension scheme than even the old civil service one. ]And when a MP - by definition - fails in his job, by being so incompetent as to lose an election, he's actually paid a bonus for leaving.
I appreciate NPXMP's point that there is some nonsense going around - but there's solid ore there under the pyrites in the heap of public resentment.
I'm not comparing them with corporate practice because it's up to commercial companies, within the wider law, what they do (even going to Stringfellows as noted by another PBer today or yesterday).
The points raised by the Committee. The particular accusation that you have made, and the disagreement with the Commissioner's view on it, is dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 39.
Their analysis seems reasonable enough to me. At most it's a different interpretation of how the rules apply to what the Commissioner describes as 'Mrs Miller’s unusual situation'. Note also that the Commissioner's argument is based on a strict interpretation of the position of a comma in the rules.
Personally, I think the Committee's analysis makes more sense than the Commissioner's. You seem to disagree, but only because you've assumed before considering the arguments that the MPs must all by definition be crooks and the Committee not impartial.
"The points raised by the committee". Which ones? Come on, let's be specific. Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.
I'm going out. I'll try to come back on later to address whatever Richard comes back with. If I don't please repost what you come up with next time we're both around.
@Socrates - It's a waste of time, you simply won't look at the evidence. In the entire exchange you have not answered a single point, now you're reduced to smearing the all-party Committee, without even a cursory attempt to explain where you think their carefully-considered report is wrong.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
e on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
I have never, ever, been able to understand how MPs could JUSTIFY being treated in any way to the level of one penny more than ordinary civil servants, never mind behave in ways that would rightly have got me demoted, sacked and/or reported to the polis if I tried them on when in public service. If they are servants of the public then they should behave like them. If they are not then ...
For instance, TFS got a £12 bill knocked back because it had an alcoholic drink on it that he hadn't known to separate out . But MPs have bars at work! Similar points can be made about lunch and dinner, and accommodation. And there is all the additional work-related income from companies, unions, etc. which they receive just for doing their job, with absolutely prima facie conflicts of interest. By contrast when I was a writer in my spare time I had to report every penny I received. If a piece was in any way related to my employer (as opposed to being merely in the same subject field) I paid over every penny rather than avoid arguments.
[Edit: They have a better pension scheme than even the old civil service one. ]And when a MP - by definition - fails in his job, by being so incompetent as to lose an election, he's actually paid a bonus for leaving.
I appreciate NPXMP's point that there is some nonsense going around - but there's solid ore there under the pyrites in the heap of public resentment.
I'm not comparing them with corporate practice because it's up to commercial companies, within the wider law, what they do (even going to Stringfellows as noted by another PBer today or yesterday).
Agreed. I am bored of being ruled by self-serving c*nts (and that includes the SNP). Having an elitist and unequal society is tolerable if the elite is clever and brutally efficient, like, say the 18th century English imperialists.
Today's lot couldn't conquer Rockall. Imagine Ed Miliband trying to defeat the French in India. Jeez.
Ed defeated his own brother. True, it wasn't exactly the Battle of Crécy, but it was a victory.
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Also it's "ultraluxurious", and they give me a butler and endless free wine.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Sean, is the name of the ship "B arc" or something of that nature?
"The points raised by the committee". Which ones? Come on, let's be specific. Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.
Dear me!
Socrates: 'The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer. That action wasn't needed for her to live in London - it was purely a money making scheme.'
Richard Nabavi: 'What you describe as "The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer" was considered in detail by the Committee'
Socrates: 'Which points are you expecting me to respond to?'
Richard Nabavi: 'The particular accusation that you have made, and the disagreement with the Commissioner's view on it, is dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 39.'
Socrates: 'Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.'
As I said, you are stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence. If you can't be bothered to read it (and I wouldn't blame you, it's complicated enough), that is fine. Only, in that case, your opinion on the matter is worthless, isn't it? It would be better to say that you don't have an opinion, because you haven't looked at the evidence.
Agreed. I am bored of being ruled by self-serving c*nts (and that includes the SNP). Having an elitist and unequal society is tolerable if the elite is clever and brutally efficient, like, say the 18th century English imperialists.
Today's lot couldn't conquer Rockall. Imagine Ed Miliband trying to defeat the French in India. Jeez.
TBF, I think the politicians, in the main were pretty cra*p then as well. Just look at Bentinck to pick one random example that comes immediately to mind. A plotter, a schemer, a perennial incompetent, who only got where he did because of who his Dad was
The beating of the French in India was done by Lord Clive of Plassey. I could easily imagine someone like Rory Stewart, since he has been discussed today, taking the initiative in a situation like that.
Re: Miller - ultimately she has been found not guilty. Perhaps best to chalk it up to experience and move on. Some people seem incapable of accepting the verdict.
So you'd pick John Terry for the World Cup?
He is our best centre half, and not guilty of any offence in the Anton ferdinand case so why not?
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Also it's "ultraluxurious", and they give me a butler and endless free wine.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
I've backed The Package for The Grand National tomorrow. It's form got a huge boost today when the two horses who finished ahead of him at Cheltenham both won very good races at Aintree. Looks like an improver from an in-form trainer.
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Also it's "ultraluxurious", and they give me a butler and endless free wine.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Sean, is the name of the ship "B arc" or something of that nature?
?
I'm surely missing some clever joke, but I'm too knackered after parenting to work it out. The ship is called the Silver Discoverer.
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I've always avoided cruises in the past, when I've been offered them as assignments, for precisely that reason. But this one was different - first, it's the Kimberley, arguably the most incredible coastline in the world, a place I've always longed to see - and this may be my only chance.
Also it's "ultraluxurious", and they give me a butler and endless free wine.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Very true. Happily, travel journalism is the last corner of the profession where you are EXPECTED to drink, indeed it is an integral part of the job.
Last year I did a tour of "the ten best hotels in the Maldives" where every single hotel gave me a free bottle of iced champagne, to start me off for the day. And that was literally the start. At one point I thought I was going to die from poisoning by Taittinger.
May be you should try and get someone to commission you to do a piece of the top 10 places to visit in Epernay?
If you do go, I'd strongly recommend you try Giesler & Cie - I don't believe they import to thr UK anymore (my Dad sold the exclusive importer to THF and Rocco tried to take them mass market).
For the first five minutes when I got in - from the news - I assumed Brucie had snuffed it. Everyone was talking about him in the past tense.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Sean, is the name of the ship "B arc" or something of that nature?
?
I'm surely missing some clever joke, but I'm too knackered after parenting to work it out. The ship is called the Silver Discoverer.
So I wasn't missing a clever joke. I was missing a Douglas Adams joke.
One day someone meaner than me should do a blog demolishing Adams' writing. His humour is essentially puerile and sophomoric. It has the appearance and feel of clever, adult humour, but when you examine it, the wit is adolescent.
Apparently a very nice guy though. He was married to a friend of a friend. RIP.
*shrugs* I like it, to each their own.
I'm believe there's a line about examining jokes and frogs.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Sean, is the name of the ship "B arc" or something of that nature?
?
I'm surely missing some clever joke, but I'm too knackered after parenting to work it out. The ship is called the Silver Discoverer.
So I wasn't missing a clever joke. I was missing a Douglas Adams joke.
One day someone meaner than me should do a blog demolishing Adams' writing. His humour is essentially puerile and sophomoric. It has the appearance and feel of clever, adult humour, but when you examine it, the wit is adolescent.
Apparently a very nice guy though. He was married to a friend of a friend. RIP.
That's exactly why we love it. Adolescent humour appeals.
It's why, alongside IEEE Spectrum, the Economist, and the London Review of Books, we also have copies of Viz. :-)
Sometimes clever adult humour is just too Radio 4. I.e. tosserific.
"The points raised by the committee". Which ones? Come on, let's be specific. Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.
Dear me!
Socrates: 'The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer. That action wasn't needed for her to live in London - it was purely a money making scheme.'
Richard Nabavi: 'What you describe as "The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer" was considered in detail by the Committee'
Socrates: 'Which points are you expecting me to respond to?'
Richard Nabavi: 'The particular accusation that you have made, and the disagreement with the Commissioner's view on it, is dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 39.'
Socrates: 'Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.'
As I said, you are stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence. If you can't be bothered to read it (and I wouldn't blame you, it's complicated enough), that is fine. Only, in that case, your opinion on the matter is worthless, isn't it? It would be better to say that you don't have an opinion, because you haven't looked at the evidence.
sorry Richard didn't mean to jump in on your exchange with @Socrates.
The committee was pretty thorough IMO, as you say, determining meaning on the placement of a comma. Equally, the "most nights" test they agreed would not necessarily be obvious to most MPs.
That said, what on earth was MM playing at by being such a prime shit about it all?
Perhaps she took umbrage at the fact that anyone could impugn her morals but she did seem to go the extra mile to be perfectly awful.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
And the free booze, obv.
Maligned as they are, in my experience British journalists make for the very best company imaginable. They drink a lot, they are necessarily garrulous, they are fantastically indiscreet and luridly cynical, and they are full of bitchy but delicious gossip. Even the prudes from the Guardian can be amusing, at times.
Very true. Happily, travel journalism is the last corner of the profession where you are EXPECTED to drink, indeed it is an integral part of the job.
Last year I did a tour of "the ten best hotels in the Maldives" where every single hotel gave me a free bottle of iced champagne, to start me off for the day. And that was literally the start. At one point I thought I was going to die from poisoning by Taittinger.
May be you should try and get someone to commission you to do a piece of the top 10 places to visit in Epernay?
If you do go, I'd strongly recommend you try Giesler & Cie - I don't believe they import to thr UK anymore (my Dad sold the exclusive importer to THF and Rocco tried to take them mass market).
Nowhere in the world can match the Maldives for luxury. The whole experience peaked when they flew me in by private seaplane to one isolated atoll just so I could have lobster and Petrus at an underwater restaurant patrolled by manta rays:
I've backed The Package for The Grand National tomorrow. It's form got a huge boost today when the two horses who finished ahead of him at Cheltenham both won very good races at Aintree. Looks like an improver from an in-form trainer.
Thanks Shadsy. I am on, although I should note that when I have followed your 'tips' here they have a 100% failure rate.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
"I think you've yet to learn the meaning of the term.
The biggest luxury is time. Ideally spent with my family, and a glass of chilled pouilly fume, on the deck in california"
Pah! Call that luxury? Luxury is sitting in my own garden with my cat and eating cockles washed down with brown ale.
Double pah! You southerners don't understand the meaning of luxury. It's being in my tent at Sandwood Bay on the one warm, sunny day of the Scottish year, with my girl at my side and a large bottle of whisky.
Although I'm perhaps the only person who calls this 'luxury' ...
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
What did the cat do when you said 'Barack Obama' ;-)
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
I've somehow managed to back ten different horses in tomorrow's race.
One of them is Colbert Station, based purely on the fact I like Stephen Colbert.
My other tips are TeaForThree, Double Seven, The Package, Big Shu, Rainbow Hunter, Quito De La Roque, Shakalakaboomboom, Battle Group and Vesper Bell.
I chose Vesper, 'cause I love Eva Green and she was Vesper Lynd in some Bond films and 300: Rise of an Empire.
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
What did the cat do when you said 'Barack Obama' ;-)
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
Walkon @ 40-1 EW Big Severn for something shorter priced.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Because the Co-operative Party links are a rather large elephant in the room (admittedly of several). Now, if you're saying these links should go, then good.
I agree that MPs first responsibility should be representing their constituents. But I'm not sure removing all links to organisations is the right way to go. If someone is an MP for fifteen years, a great deal has changed in that time, and any useful expertise they may have would be well out of date.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
Bet365 are effectively double odds on everything btw - smash into it.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Because the Co-operative Party links are a rather large elephant in the room (admittedly of several). Now, if you're saying these links should go, then good.
I agree that MPs first responsibility should be representing their constituents. But I'm not sure removing all links to organisations is the right way to go. If someone is an MP for fifteen years, a great deal has changed in that time, and any useful expertise they may have would be well out of date. In this, like so many things, openness is key.</blockquote
Well I'm sure they're capable of keeping up to date with stuff that matters to them.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Because the Co-operative Party links are a rather large elephant in the room (admittedly of several). Now, if you're saying these links should go, then good.
I agree that MPs first responsibility should be representing their constituents. But I'm not sure removing all links to organisations is the right way to go. If someone is an MP for fifteen years, a great deal has changed in that time, and any useful expertise they may have would be well out of date.
In this, like so many things, openness is key.
However ludicrous you think them the Co-operative party is a legal political party.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Because the Co-operative Party links are a rather large elephant in the room (admittedly of several). Now, if you're saying these links should go, then good.
I agree that MPs first responsibility should be representing their constituents. But I'm not sure removing all links to organisations is the right way to go. If someone is an MP for fifteen years, a great deal has changed in that time, and any useful expertise they may have would be well out of date.
In this, like so many things, openness is key.
Completely agree. Publish the details and let the public decide. Far too many things are banned / compulsory as it is. Much better to trust to the judgement of the electorate as to what's fair and what's not.
As for the National, Teaforthree has a real favourites chance and Burton Port, The Package and Big Shu each way for me.
When do you expect him to go? Even if he were to resign in the aftermath of a disastrous May showing (possible but far from certain), wouldn't he be likely to stay on until a new Lib Dem leader were elected, probably for their conference in September and almost certainly no earlier than July? Cameron may well have shuffled his Conservative ministerial team by then.
Scandals aside, it's surely heavily odds-on that the next out will be a Tory, simply because Cameron has far more scope to shuffle his own MPs (as well as there being more of them).
I have never, ever, been able to understand how MPs could JUSTIFY being treated in any way to the level of one penny more than ordinary civil servants, never mind behave in ways that would rightly have got me demoted, sacked and/or reported to the polis if I tried them on when in public service. If they are servants of the public then they should behave like them. If they are not then ...
For instance, TFS got a £12 bill knocked back because it had an alcoholic drink on it that he hadn't known to separate out . But MPs have bars at work! Similar points can be made about lunch and dinner, and accommodation. And there is all the additional work-related income from companies, unions, etc. which they receive just for doing their job, with absolutely prima facie conflicts of interest. By contrast when I was a writer in my spare time I had to report every penny I received. If a piece was in any way related to my employer (as opposed to being merely in the same subject field) I paid over every penny rather than avoid arguments.
[Edit: They have a better pension scheme than even the old civil service one. ]And when a MP - by definition - fails in his job, by being so incompetent as to lose an election, he's actually paid a bonus for leaving.
I appreciate NPXMP's point that there is some nonsense going around - but there's solid ore there under the pyrites in the heap of public resentment.
I'm not comparing them with corporate practice because it's up to commercial companies, within the wider law, what they do (even going to Stringfellows as noted by another PBer today or yesterday).
Agreed. I am bored of being ruled by self-serving c*nts (and that includes the SNP). Having an elitist and unequal society is tolerable if the elite is clever and brutally efficient, like, say the 18th century English imperialists.
Today's lot couldn't conquer Rockall. Imagine Ed Miliband trying to defeat the French in India. Jeez.
Two very interesting points you might want to consider:
1. the SNP don't give honours, and above all peerages (more precisely they delegate it to some civil servants). That is one reason, to my mind, the Labour Party becomes utterly demented when anyone mentions the SNP, who act as a standing moral reproach - to the LDs too.
2. the Scottish MSPs voted not to have a pay increase [edit: above civil service levels]. Personally, I'd rather see a root and branch review, pay them as civil servants on a decent salary and prevent any other troughing, but it is at least a start.
Comments
In doing so the LibDems hope to hold the tide against them in their historically worst performing elections and even edge up a tad and avoid a potential near wipe out that is likely if they poll 8% or so.
Over the two debates, despite you view, almost a third of the punters saw Clegg as the winner - far greater than the 10% or so the polls advise us intend to vote for them in the Euro elections. The LibDem aim is to peel away a couple more points of that third to avoid an awful result.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/clegg-lost-against-farage-but-thats-not-the-point/
Business is business ....
The man was promoting Scotland , only self serving labour cretinous troughers could have a problem with that.
The Commons committee rejected the result of an independent enquiry but still couldn't reduce the amount Miller had to pay back below £5,800 and still insisted that she apologised. If you can't see that this affair looks dreadful for Cameron, the Conservatives and Westminster politicians in general, I can't help you.
The end of the tax year is upon us so why don't you "mistakenly" underestimate your tax liability by £5,800 then let us know how you get on when HMRC find out.
"I invited television viewers to come and join UKIP's People's Army.
I really meant it.
And I am delighted to report that the people are answering the rallying call in record numbers - more than 1,000 new membership applications so far and more flooding in by the hour."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/468681/We-ll-start-selling-Nick-Clegg-mops-so-you-too-can-wipe-the-floor-with-him-says-Farage
PS, his pathetic labelling of Alex Salmond as "Salmoan" means that he is a cretin and does not deserve a decent reply in the first place, if he is not a spotty youth he should be ashamed to be so childish.
FPT past v present... it's the surfeit of *choice* that we have now that I can't stand. I find it stressful. That and the having to hide from ads and tech and stuff at times, as that stresses me out as well. Everything seemed simpler way back when.
Sometimes you have to think about the greater good. That's why I think Miller should go or get the boot.
And finally... can't imagine you on a cruise Sean. However butlered. Maybe as my idea of hell, but there you go.
That doesn't alter the fact that the main complaint against her was (rightly) rejected.
As for your last point, in any business I've been involved in, if someone makes a genuine mistake in their expenses, which is subsequently discovered, and where there is no suggestion of dishonesty, they'll be asked to pay it back, and that will be the end of the matter. Do you know of any exceptions to this general approach?
"L" is for Liberal is for LIAR
"L" is for Labour is for LIAR
"C" is for Conservative is for CONMAN
"U" is for UKIP is for UNITED
And UKIP is the only Party that is a UNITED Truth Party.
Yeesh.
It's sad, but regrettably not unusual. Bile, prejudice, anger, refusal to look at the facts - what can one do?
Perhaps there are other sad folk out there who did the same but I have just read the MM judgement.
What emerges is that:
a) hers were well within the bounds of allowable expenses apart from a short period when interest rates changed rapidly downwards when she overclaimed and hence the repayment; and
b) The designation of her primary and secondary homes were in order; and
c) Her parents had been living with her for years so why on earth should she have changed that once she became an MP; and
d) Her claims were low enough such that if there had been an adjustment to exclude her parents' portion of mortgage costs they remained within the allowable figure; and
d) She is evidently an obstreperous, ghastly, solipsistic little sh1t.
'Ans Alex Salmond had 2 nights in a decent hotel in among that , what is your point , should have stayed in a hostel. '
Clearly the hotel that the rest of the delegation stayed at was just for plebs and not good enough for Salmoan.
Salmoan troughing OK ,Miller troughing bad.
'Although the breakdown shows more than £80,000 was spent on accommodation, it refers only to a hotel near the tournament venue used by officials and not the five-star Peninsula Hotel where it is understood Mr and Mrs Salmond stayed.
The latter is popular with celebrities such as Jay – Z, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston but is much further away from the Medinah Country Club, where the Ryder Cup was staged. '
And the free booze, obv.
As for the all-party committee, are you really denying that there not exactly the most impartial group? Would you think it sensible that a police officer with an abuse complaint be investigated by his work mates? The fact that this committee overrode the independent group is very, very dodgy.
As for "bile" and "anger", there's nothing of the sort. Just because I say something is "unethical" doesn't mean there's bile there. As for "prejudice" and "refusal to look at the facts", out of all the people on this board, you seem one that gets more frustrated when people come to different conclusions to you.
By the way, Richard Nabavi, I guess when David Cameron offers his "very warm support", that doesn't indicated friendship at all? I always offer "warmth" to my acquaintances, don't you?
Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the Editor of The Telegraph was involved in meetings with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson.
"Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors' meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about," said Miss Hindley.
Miss Hindley also said the reporter should discuss the issue with "people a little higher up your organisation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/cabinet-expenses/10642222/MPs-expenses-Maria-Miller-criticised-for-90000-claim-by-parliamentary-watchdog.html
Richard Nabavi - how ethical do you consider this behaviour to be?
Following on from the debates, having the front cover of The Times saying "Fury grows as expenses row minister clings to job" is just what he would have asked for.
Their analysis seems reasonable enough to me. At most it's a different interpretation of how the rules apply to what the Commissioner describes as 'Mrs Miller’s unusual situation'. Note also that the Commissioner's argument is based on a strict interpretation of the position of a comma in the rules.
Personally, I think the Committee's analysis makes more sense than the Commissioner's. You seem to disagree, but only because you've assumed before considering the arguments that the MPs must all by definition be crooks and the Committee not impartial.
Oh, wait....
For instance, TFS got a £12 bill knocked back because it had an alcoholic drink on it that he hadn't known to separate out . But MPs have bars at work! Similar points can be made about lunch and dinner, and accommodation. And there is all the additional work-related income from companies, unions, etc. which they receive just for doing their job, with absolutely prima facie conflicts of interest. By contrast when I was a writer in my spare time I had to report every penny I received. If a piece was in any way related to my employer (as opposed to being merely in the same subject field) I paid over every penny rather than avoid arguments.
[Edit: They have a better pension scheme than even the old civil service one. ]And when a MP - by definition - fails in his job, by being so incompetent as to lose an election, he's actually paid a bonus for leaving.
I appreciate NPXMP's point that there is some nonsense going around - but there's solid ore there under the pyrites in the heap of public resentment.
I'm not comparing them with corporate practice because it's up to commercial companies, within the wider law, what they do (even going to Stringfellows as noted by another PBer today or yesterday).
Sean, is the name of the ship "B arc" or something of that nature?
Socrates: 'The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer. That action wasn't needed for her to live in London - it was purely a money making scheme.'
Richard Nabavi: 'What you describe as "The fact that she abused the system by borrowing more money against the house, knowing she could claim the extra interest from the taxpayer" was considered in detail by the Committee'
Socrates: 'Which points are you expecting me to respond to?'
Richard Nabavi: 'The particular accusation that you have made, and the disagreement with the Commissioner's view on it, is dealt with in paragraphs 35 to 39.'
Socrates: 'Rather than sending me off to read legalese, please point to the precise ones you wish me to address.'
As I said, you are stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence. If you can't be bothered to read it (and I wouldn't blame you, it's complicated enough), that is fine. Only, in that case, your opinion on the matter is worthless, isn't it? It would be better to say that you don't have an opinion, because you haven't looked at the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_George_Bentinck
The beating of the French in India was done by Lord Clive of Plassey. I could easily imagine someone like Rory Stewart, since he has been discussed today, taking the initiative in a situation like that.
He is our best centre half, and not guilty of any offence in the Anton ferdinand case so why not?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectator-life-columnists/harry-cole/9166881/save-the-boozy-lunch/
If you do go, I'd strongly recommend you try Giesler & Cie - I don't believe they import to thr UK anymore (my Dad sold the exclusive importer to THF and Rocco tried to take them mass market).
I'm believe there's a line about examining jokes and frogs.
It's why, alongside IEEE Spectrum, the Economist, and the London Review of Books, we also have copies of Viz. :-)
Sometimes clever adult humour is just too Radio 4. I.e. tosserific.
The committee was pretty thorough IMO, as you say, determining meaning on the placement of a comma. Equally, the "most nights" test they agreed would not necessarily be obvious to most MPs.
That said, what on earth was MM playing at by being such a prime shit about it all?
Perhaps she took umbrage at the fact that anyone could impugn her morals but she did seem to go the extra mile to be perfectly awful.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
We (the British) need to be put back in our place. Thus Clegg
The biggest luxury is time. Ideally spent with my family, and a glass of chilled pouilly fume, on the deck in california
Next to leave the Coalition Cabinet
Next to leave the Coalition Cabinet Pending £2.50
Sorry for others wishing to back it...
£20.00 EW Single 04/04/2014 12:00:33 40.00 0.00
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ...
(**) It isn't going to happen either.
The biggest luxury is time. Ideally spent with my family, and a glass of chilled pouilly fume, on the deck in california"
Pah! Call that luxury? Luxury is sitting in my own garden with my cat and eating cockles washed down with brown ale.
Although I'm perhaps the only person who calls this 'luxury' ...
Who should I back in the National?
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
Bloomberg News @BloombergNews 30m
BREAKING: Nasdaq Composite falls 2.7%, heading for biggest drop since 2012.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
One of them is Colbert Station, based purely on the fact I like Stephen Colbert.
My other tips are TeaForThree, Double Seven, The Package, Big Shu, Rainbow Hunter, Quito De La Roque, Shakalakaboomboom, Battle Group and Vesper Bell.
I chose Vesper, 'cause I love Eva Green and she was Vesper Lynd in some Bond films and 300: Rise of an Empire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/10465067/Underwater-hotels-The-Fab-Five.html
I'll get my leopard fur coat ....
Big Severn for something shorter priced.
Heard good words for Balthazar King too
Top three:
Armenia 11/10
Sweden 7/1
Denmark 12/1
The final is 10 May in Copenhagen.
I agree that MPs first responsibility should be representing their constituents. But I'm not sure removing all links to organisations is the right way to go. If someone is an MP for fifteen years, a great deal has changed in that time, and any useful expertise they may have would be well out of date.
In this, like so many things, openness is key.
Ladbrokes shorten their price yet again on YES getting 55%+
Now at 5/1. Shadsy started that band at 20/1 when he launched this market last summer.
(I'm at the cinema until about 2.00am, so don't expect a prompt reply)
As for the National, Teaforthree has a real favourites chance and Burton Port, The Package and Big Shu each way for me.
Scandals aside, it's surely heavily odds-on that the next out will be a Tory, simply because Cameron has far more scope to shuffle his own MPs (as well as there being more of them).
1. the SNP don't give honours, and above all peerages (more precisely they delegate it to some civil servants). That is one reason, to my mind, the Labour Party becomes utterly demented when anyone mentions the SNP, who act as a standing moral reproach - to the LDs too.
2. the Scottish MSPs voted not to have a pay increase [edit: above civil service levels]. Personally, I'd rather see a root and branch review, pay them as civil servants on a decent salary and prevent any other troughing, but it is at least a start.
[edit: I am not an SNP member.]