I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
I know what Richard is saying, and it's fair, when put like that, but, who hounded her out? Cameron? The press? John Mann? Who would she claim against? Would she have a bullying case against her fellow Tory MPs who thought she should go? So I don't think you can put it in the same context as employee law.
You can if you want to ignore what happened with calamity Clegg and Rennard. The idea that every scandal is measured by the niceties of employment law is naive and laughable nonsense. It's politics and it's certainly understood by every single MP who tries to climb the greasy pole.
I don't quite see why Labour had to comment on the mini re-shuffle while it was going on or indeed at all. Criticise the Minister for what they do or say by all means but it seems foolish to have a go at them for simply being chosen.
That said, Hodges as usual overplays his hand completely and allows his vitriol toward the current Labour leadership to colour his analysis.
I wonder whether Danny Alexander is happy to see the back of Sajid Javid. I have to say while Javid may appeal to the Conservative faithful, I'm distinctly underwhelmed thus far. His attack on Ed Miliband over Ukraine was clumsy and poor politics.
I know little or nothing about Nicky Morgan but wish her well in her new post.
The Osborne grip on the Government grows of course ever stronger and it's quite clear to this observer that a Cameron "retirement" as Prime Minister in the next Parliament would leave Osborne in a very strong position.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Failure to compensate for loss of office makes it more rather than less easy to remove a cabinet minister (and any other paid official).
In cases such as Maria Miller's where the formal disciplinary process has not recommended dismissal from office or even major penalty, then the PM is relying on the cabinet minister to resign 'voluntarily' on the basis of a political judgement. Six month's pay in lieu of notice would be standard in the private sector for a salaried employee and much more if there was a service contract. So Miller's £18,000 is meagre in comparison.
Angry bloodlust is no substitute for reasoned justice, even in politics.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
It wasn’t an easy topic, and while friends and foes will have different reactions, objective observers will agree the Leader of HM’s Opposition made a complete **** of himself. Too strong? A complete @£$% of himself.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
TFS
As Richard pointed out it is only two months pay.
And as you pointed out, if you were offered only two months pay for loss of your job, you would be "straight on to Thompsons".
I suspect you would be even more aggrieved if your constructive dismissal/resignation was:
a) without notice;
b) followed an eighteen month inquiry into your conduct which acquitted you of all major charges and only required you to apologise to your station colleagues;
c) was driven by a local press campaign mainly unrelated to your personal conduct.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
Of course
Some chance of that. They have "no money left".
Are we prepared to accept shares in the Co-operative Bank?
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
I....
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
...
Angry bloodlust is no substitute for reasoned justice, even in politics.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
TFS
As Richard pointed out it is only two months pay.
And as you pointed out, if you were offered only two months pay for loss of your job, you would be "straight on to Thompsons".
I suspect you would be even more aggrieved if your dismissal was:
a) without notice;
b) followed an eighteen month inquiry into your conduct which acquitted you of all major charges and only required you to apologise to your station colleagues;
c) was driven by a local press campaign mainly unrelated to your personal conduct.
Let's get some real perspective here.
As I said, it ain't so much Miller, it's all of 'em. How much did the Blair and Brown minister merry-go-round cost the taxpayer? As for context, " only two months pay"=18 grand, lets see how that flies when you tell the average Joe he needs to see it in context. And resigned cabinet ministers still keeps their job as an MP!
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
Of course
Some chance of that. They have "no money left".
Are we prepared to accept shares in the Co-operative Bank?
Will you purchase £45,000 or £5,800 worth of shares, Comrade Chancellor?
The final say over what sanctions an MP should face is left to a committee of fellow MPs and lay members - the Commons Committee for Standards. The 10 MPs have a vote; the three lay members do not.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
Of course
Some chance of that. They have "no money left".
Are we prepared to accept shares in the Co-operative Bank?
Will the Co op bank have its results out on Friday ? third time lucky ?
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
I think what Richard was saying was than in any other profession it would be wrongful, as so in politics it was the payoff for it not being so. However, I don't agree; I think there's something contradictory about "having failed my constituents" and claiming a payoff.
In general, yes, politicians are underpaid compared to many comparable jobs, but, fundamentally, that is the wrong comparison. Politicians are paid in their place in history and their ability to change things, as well as serve the public.
Time we introduced performance-related pay for Cabinet Ministers?
In which case I can't help feeling the nation is due a huge refund from the vast majority of the last Labour government.
Of course
Some chance of that. They have "no money left".
Are we prepared to accept shares in the Co-operative Bank?
Will you purchase £45,000 or £5,800 worth of shares, Comrade Chancellor?
Comrade Sunilsky
If it were a Lib-Lab Coalition, I would get Vince to sell me shares at £45,000 market value for a purchase price of £5,800.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
I know what Richard is saying, and it's fair, when put like that, but, who hounded her out? Cameron? The press? John Mann? Who would she claim against? Would she have a bullying case against her fellow Tory MPs who thought she should go? So I don't think you can put it in the same context as employee law.
Surely that is exactly the point - it's not a normal employment, and so there are none of the normal rights.
There are far, far, far more rights.
- 5 year contract - part time - theft of expenses not considered a crime - lying is acceptable - redundancy payment if your contract is not renewed - redundancy payment if you get demoted - pension that vests faster than light, instantly vests fully if you retire early through illness, and you keep it even if you recover and go back to work - unreceipted expenses - tax free food allowance - subsidised alcohol and food - basic MP pay earned by hardly anyone - topped up by thousands a year for sitting on committees - jobs for family and friends through the office allowance and no need to advertise the jobs - no qualifications or experience of any kind whatsoever required - an 18-year-old (Emily Benn) is considered capable of doing the job.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
Any non-compliant claim or inaccurate calculation would then be referred back to the line manager, who would agree a correction with the claimant before money is paid. In the rare event of a discrepancy being discovered after the claims have been signed off and vetted, and reimbursed, the matter would be dealt with in a similar way, but with a claim back, probably with more senior management involvement.
Only if those involved in the approval and checking chain believed that the claim was fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate, would any disciplinary action be taken. Unless the amount misclaimed was very substantial a first transgression would probably result in a formal warning and required repayment.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed just wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
Avery , no wimpy excuses , they need taking outside and given a good pummeling. They are still at it even though we are paying gazillons for a troupe of clowns to check and monitor their expenses. Then even when an independent looks at it and states it is dodgy , they have a get out of jail card in that 10 other cheating bloodsuckers that work with them get to let them off scot free. Stocks outside parliament would be a good idea , a couple of weeks getting rotten cabbages and tomatoes thrown at them would make them think twice and bring back hanging and flogging whilst we are at it.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
Avery , no wimpy excuses , they need taking outside and given a good pummeling. They are still at it even though we are paying gazillons for a troupe of clowns to check and monitor their expenses. Then even when an independent looks at it and states it is dodgy , they have a get out of jail card in that 10 other cheating bloodsuckers that work with them get to let them off scot free. Stocks outside parliament would be a good idea , a couple of weeks getting rotten cabbages and tomatoes thrown at them would make them think twice and bring back hanging and flogging whilst we are at it.
What about claiming free tartan trews ? Is that acceptable ever ?
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
Avery , no wimpy excuses , they need taking outside and given a good pummeling. They are still at it even though we are paying gazillons for a troupe of clowns to check and monitor their expenses. Then even when an independent looks at it and states it is dodgy , they have a get out of jail card in that 10 other cheating bloodsuckers that work with them get to let them off scot free. Stocks outside parliament would be a good idea , a couple of weeks getting rotten cabbages and tomatoes thrown at them would make them think twice and bring back hanging and flogging whilst we are at it.
It's a good idea to change them every year or so anyway, and more regularly if they are important ones, such as banking.
Then there's the problem of remembering them all (especially for people like me, who work for several different firms concurrently). There're various techniques that can be used, including the following. It's not perfect, but it's a trade-off between security and practicality.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
It's a vocation, not a job - the whole bloody problem is people confusing the two.
MPs should be employed 4 days a week sometime else and we could give up the charade of herding them through lobbies on someone else's orders whilst they have a hoard of recent graduates acting as glorified social workers on their behalf, at our expense.
One day a week should be plenty of time to have the substantive debates and votes really required, and would prevent them forgetting it's a privilege rather than a source of income.
I'm just amazed that any cabinet minister gets 18 grand for losing a promotion. Doesn't that bother you?
I'd have thought that the events of the past few days show exactly why they do.
If you were hounded out of your job when your employer, following its own procedures, had found that the allegations against you were unfounded, you'd have a cast-iron case for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
If she's been treated unlawfully, then she should persue it. That 18 grand can kick start her legal fund. You rich Tories don't understand, do you? But then again, neither do the rich Labourites. 18 grand. That's a lot of money to me, and most people in this country. 18 grand just because you get demoted from cabinet. Money goes to money, I guess.
Especially as the demotion was due to either being very very stupid or fraudulent claims on expenses. Most normal people would just have been arrested and have no job far less a big bonus.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
Avery , no wimpy excuses , they need taking outside and given a good pummeling. They are still at it even though we are paying gazillons for a troupe of clowns to check and monitor their expenses. Then even when an independent looks at it and states it is dodgy , they have a get out of jail card in that 10 other cheating bloodsuckers that work with them get to let them off scot free. Stocks outside parliament would be a good idea , a couple of weeks getting rotten cabbages and tomatoes thrown at them would make them think twice and bring back hanging and flogging whilst we are at it.
What about claiming free tartan trews ? Is that acceptable ever ?
Flash, We cannot have our top man going out in his pants or a pair of normal trousers. Tartan trews are a must for our top man, personally I would be in a kilt but he prefers the trews.
Only if those involved in the approval and checking chain believed that the claim was fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate, would any disciplinary action be taken. Unless the amount misclaimed was very substantial a first transgression would probably result in a formal warning and required repayment.
That's not what would happen where I work.
If someone submitted a claim for say a taxi fare of £75 it would be paid in the first instance but post-audited. If the receipt was missing, or was for £7 in black biro with 5 added after it in red marker pen, then probably the employee would first be suspended, and then dismissed without notice or reference.
What is simply incredible about the Maria Miller case is that she is a/ a lawyer and b/ organised enough to claim 99.87% of the permissible maximum. Yet she claims to have misunderstood the rules, because they were confusing.
So she was able to optimise her claims to within a few quid of the maximum, but she didn't understand the rules. Yeah, right.
And further - she just went ahead and claimed and trousered the money. Again, if I am not sure I am owed money I don't assume it's mine and claim it. I ask first to find out if it's claimable.
I don't believe her. In a way she has done us a service though because the shameful let-off and her general obnoxiousness when challenged speaks volumes about how arrogantly entitled these sordid prostitutes feel.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
Well the King of the Hodges was very persuasive.
Do you have a counter argument?
Yep, discount anything the King of the Hodges ever says.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be fair a Hodges "terrible backlash" is as predictable as Avery's inept out of touch spin.
MPs should be employed 4 days a week sometime else and we could give up the charade of herding them through lobbies on someone else's orders whilst they have a hoard of recent graduates acting as glorified social workers on their behalf, at our expense.
One day a week should be plenty of time to have the substantive debates and votes really required, and would prevent them forgetting it's a privilege rather than a source of income.
You'd better tell the voters. The reason MPs act as glorified social workers is because that gets them re-elected. If they don't the press lay into them for neglecting their constituency and being aloof, arrogant, and out of touch. It's called 'democracy'.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be fair a Hodges "terrible backlash" is as predictable as Avery's inept out of touch spin.
Hodges and Avery - Figting each other to the bottom of the political prediction league. It will be close who will have the most failures, though my money is on Hodges.
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
They do - 7th May 2015
With all this talk as to which constituency Farage might stand - Q: what is the latest date possible for a candidate (any candidate) to declare their standing?
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
MPs should be employed 4 days a week sometime else and we could give up the charade of herding them through lobbies on someone else's orders whilst they have a hoard of recent graduates acting as glorified social workers on their behalf, at our expense.
One day a week should be plenty of time to have the substantive debates and votes really required, and would prevent them forgetting it's a privilege rather than a source of income.
You'd better tell the voters. The reason MPs act as glorified social workers is because that gets them re-elected. If they don't the press lay into them for neglecting their constituency and being aloof, arrogant, and out of touch. It's called 'democracy'.
You'd better get cracking telling them then. For some strange reason they don't seem to find the spin very convincing.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
What are your views on the parliamentary debit card scheme that pops up from time to time on Guide Fawkes' blog? Seems like a sensible way to account for spending to be claimed on expenses. No need for receipts, and it could be mostly computerised.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
Basingstoke residents are going to be seeing an awful lot of Ms Miller in Labour & UKIP leaflets this May.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
If Maria Miller had upfront in her apology said she would be more comfortable to repay 45k perhaps she wouldn't have had to resign?
Ouch!! That one must have hurt. It would seem Miller's antics have not been as blameless and 'misunderstood' as the Cameroons on here would like to believe. Those tory MPs who were complaining she was costing them votes were almost certainly on the receiving end of anger from their constituents while the Cameroons were busy spinning away obliviously.
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
They do - 7th May 2015
With all this talk as to which constituency Farage might stand - Q: what is the latest date possible for a candidate (any candidate) to declare their standing?
Once the general election is called candidates must hand their completed nomination papers and £500 deposit to the Acting Returning Officer by 4:00pm on the duly nominated day or any day before then so detailed.
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
They do - 7th May 2015
With all this talk as to which constituency Farage might stand - Q: what is the latest date possible for a candidate (any candidate) to declare their standing?
Once the general election is called candidates must hand their completed nomination papers and £500 deposit to the Acting Returning Officer by 4:00pm on the duly nominated day or any day before then so detailed.
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
They do - 7th May 2015
With all this talk as to which constituency Farage might stand - Q: what is the latest date possible for a candidate (any candidate) to declare their standing?
Once the general election is called candidates must hand their completed nomination papers and £500 deposit to the Acting Returning Officer by 4:00pm on the duly nominated day or any day before then so detailed.
Many thanks JackW,- knew you'd be the right chap to ask. ; )
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
Basingstoke residents are going to be seeing an awful lot of Ms Miller in Labour & UKIP leaflets this May.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
They do - 7th May 2015
With all this talk as to which constituency Farage might stand - Q: what is the latest date possible for a candidate (any candidate) to declare their standing?
Once the general election is called candidates must hand their completed nomination papers and £500 deposit to the Acting Returning Officer by 4:00pm on the duly nominated day or any day before then so detailed.
So quite a while then ;-)
Indeed so .... Farage might yet get a nomination for parliament if he's lucky. Somewhere friendly to his cause .... Sebastopol North West and East Crimea for the Duma looks promising.
If someone submitted a claim for say a taxi fare of £75 it would be paid in the first instance but post-audited. If the receipt was missing, or was for £7 in black biro with 5 added after it in red marker pen, then probably the employee would first be suspended, and then dismissed without notice or reference.
What is simply incredible about the Maria Miller case is that she is a/ a lawyer and b/ organised enough to claim 99.87% of the permissible maximum. Yet she claims to have misunderstood the rules, because they were confusing.
...
In my day of claimed expenses, the formula was
advance or drawn cash less receipted expenditure = "airport snacks".
If the size of airport snacks were over-suggestive of gluttony then a multiple was applied to the number (not value) of taxi fares.
Miller was a victim of the permissive parliamentary expenses system and no more or less culpable for unreasonable claims than the majority of MPs.
Specifically, she did seek guidance on the eligibility of her mortgage interest claims from the HoC expenses office. It was only the over strict interpretation of the rules on remortgaging that led to the Standards Commissioner retrospectively calculating the 40K plus repayment.
The Standards Committee found (quite reasonably) that mortgage loan amounts fixed at the time the claimant originally became an MP should be treated as original loan amounts for the purpose of interest claims. The Committee's ruling was consistent with guidance given by the expenses office at the time.
The Standards Commissioner accepted this interpretation, after the Standards Committee made this ruling. This was not irregular as it was not within the Commissioner's remit to make such an interpretation when making her original recommendation.
As to the claims for mortgage interest, this could easily have been a genuine error. Looking back to when I received a mortgage interest subsidy, the practice was to set a monthly payment based on the previous year's mortgage lender's statement of interest paid. The monthly amount was then adjusted the following year to take into account any rate fluctuations during the year as evidenced by the subsequent annual statement. In years with many rate changes, the calculations could get quite complicated. I suspect that the HoC did not have such a system in place and required MPs to submit interest rate claims for short prior periods at a time when full documentation was not available from the mortgage lender. It is easy to see how errors could be made.
Maria Miller should have been more diligent in her interest repayment claims but I suspect she, like very many others, fell into a pattern of "put what you think is right and wait for the money" culture which was pervasive at the time.
Miller definitely sinned but I still think she was more sinned against than sinning.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
Basingstoke residents are going to be seeing an awful lot of Ms Miller in Labour & UKIP leaflets this May.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
Only if those involved in the approval and checking chain believed that the claim was fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate, would any disciplinary action be taken. Unless the amount misclaimed was very substantial a first transgression would probably result in a formal warning and required repayment.
That's not what would happen where I work.
If someone submitted a claim for say a taxi fare of £75 it would be paid in the first instance but post-audited. If the receipt was missing, or was for £7 in black biro with 5 added after it in red marker pen, then probably the employee would first be suspended, and then dismissed without notice or reference.
What is simply incredible about the Maria Miller case is that she is a/ a lawyer and b/ organised enough to claim 99.87% of the permissible maximum. Yet she claims to have misunderstood the rules, because they were confusing.
So she was able to optimise her claims to within a few quid of the maximum, but she didn't understand the rules. Yeah, right.
And further - she just went ahead and claimed and trousered the money. Again, if I am not sure I am owed money I don't assume it's mine and claim it. I ask first to find out if it's claimable.
I don't believe her. In a way she has done us a service though because the shameful let-off and her general obnoxiousness when challenged speaks volumes about how arrogantly entitled these sordid prostitutes feel.
Then your employer is failing to observe due process. If an employee was sacked for this claim with insufficient evidence of her guilt she could take your employer to the cleaners. I find it very hard to believe what you describe would happen hoŵever - very few employers are that stupid and any even semi-decent HR professional would ward them off such an insane approach.
"One senior Tory MP said it again exposed failings in the prime minister’s political and media operation: “He doesn’t think ahead,” the MP said.
“Number 10 could have had a strategy, worked with her on her personal apology, made sure she ate humble pie, tried to save her. But we were a million miles away from that and some of us are getting fed up with it.”
Miller was a victim of the permissive parliamentary expenses system and no more or less culpable for unreasonable claims than the majority of MPs.
It was the system's fault. That was certainly one of the most 'persuasive' spin lines uttered from those "sinned against" MPs caught right in the teeth of the expenses scandal.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be fair a Hodges "terrible backlash" is as predictable as Avery's inept out of touch spin.
Hodges and Avery - Figting each other to the bottom of the political prediction league. It will be close who will have the most failures, though my money is on Hodges.
Now we know you are a "well-built" strongman, 'pouter, I might even consider extending the prediction out to a week before May 7th 2015.
Carrying those posts should be no burden for such an Herculean specimen.
And to think, there were PB Hodges* on here not long ago saying this will blow over and it is time to move on. Mariagate has more legs than a centipede conga.
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be fair a Hodges "terrible backlash" is as predictable as Avery's inept out of touch spin.
Hodges and Avery - Figting each other to the bottom of the political prediction league. It will be close who will have the most failures, though my money is on Hodges.
Now we know you are a "well-built" strongman, 'pouter, I might even consider extending the prediction out to a week before May 7th 2015.
Carrying those posts should be no burden for such an Herculean specimen.
You to predictions is the same as Cameron is to strong leadership.
"One senior Tory MP said it again exposed failings in the prime minister’s political and media operation: “He doesn’t think ahead,” the MP said.
“Number 10 could have had a strategy, worked with her on her personal apology, made sure she ate humble pie, tried to save her. But we were a million miles away from that and some of us are getting fed up with it.”
Journalist's working through their guilt at the consequences of irresponsibility, 'pouter.
Reading that artcle is the equivalent of watching Pistorius's testimony.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
Basingstoke residents are going to be seeing an awful lot of Ms Miller in Labour & UKIP leaflets this May.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
Can we stop with this "found not guilty" rubbish? She was forced to apologise to the House for obstructing the entire investigation on a number of occasions. That alone should make her unworthy of government office.
"One senior Tory MP said it again exposed failings in the prime minister’s political and media operation: “He doesn’t think ahead,” the MP said.
“Number 10 could have had a strategy, worked with her on her personal apology, made sure she ate humble pie, tried to save her. But we were a million miles away from that and some of us are getting fed up with it.”
Journalist's working through their guilt at the consequences of irresponsibility, 'pouter.
Reading that artcle is the equivalent of watching Pistorius's testimony.
First he makes a complete arse of the whole "scandal" and now he cannot kill it off. Cameron really is useless at PR . Cannot wait for tomorrows front pages ;-)
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
ROFL
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark. Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants. If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
You don't seriously expect out of touch twerps to understand that 18 grand after an expenses scandal might not be a good idea, do you? The public just don't understand, in fact it's their fault!!
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower. Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
Basingstoke residents are going to be seeing an awful lot of Ms Miller in Labour & UKIP leaflets this May.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
Any non-compliant claim or inaccurate calculation would then be referred back to the line manager, who would agree a correction with the claimant before money is paid. In the rare event of a discrepancy being discovered after the claims have been signed off and vetted, and reimbursed, the matter would be dealt with in a similar way, but with a claim back, probably with more senior management involvement.
Only if those involved in the approval and checking chain believed that the claim was fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate, would any disciplinary action be taken. Unless the amount misclaimed was very substantial a first transgression would probably result in a formal warning and required repayment.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed just wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
This is nonsense. I've known people in large multinational companies exploit the expense system, manage to get it through the original process, but then later random investigations found them abusing it, and then had instant dismissal.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
Can we stop with this "found not guilty" rubbish? She was forced to apologise to the House for obstructing the entire investigation on a number of occasions. That alone should make her unworthy of government office.
Sanctimonious garbage. The drumbeat is that she has been on the fiddle, as you know full well.
I've never dared to claim a single penny for anything I wasn't entitled to. It's probably the same for most other ordinary people. That's why they can't stand people like Miller.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed just wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
This is nonsense. I've known people in large multinational companies exploit the expense system, manage to get it through the original process, but then later random investigations found them abusing it, and then had instant dismissal.
Friend of mine was summarily dismissed from a fantastic job with Al Jazeera, in Kuala Lumpur, for claiming the expense of one bottle of beer. Even worse, he did it by accident - the receipt with the single beer on it was not meant to be submitted - but went in the wrong envelope.
Due to the ridiculously puritanical views some religious people have about booze - a rare and saddening case from a distant land.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
ROFL
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark. Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
So now I am a Blairite just because I didn't join the mob. ROFL indeed.
No Malcolm. Most normal people working for normal employers have an accounts department which checks claims for compliance with published rules and correct calculation after they have been signed off by a line manager.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed just wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
This is nonsense. I've known people in large multinational companies exploit the expense system, manage to get it through the original process, but then later random investigations found them abusing it, and then had instant dismissal.
Friend of mine was summarily dismissed from a fantastic job with Al Jazeera, in Kuala Lumpur, for claiming the expense of one bottle of beer. Even worse, he did it by accident - the receipt with the single beer on it was not meant to be submitted - but went in the wrong envelope.
He is lucky to have two hands remaining, Sean.
I am sure Socrates's claim is true, but such events are very rare, and certainly not normal practice in most multi-nationals.
Two things to consider.
The reasons given by individuals for their summary dismissal are often at odds with what is recorded on file by the dismissing company.
Some companies wishing to get rid of a 'difficult' employee have been known to retrospectively scrutinise expense claims as it can be quite easy to find due cause for summary dismissal hidden in the documents. A bit like looking for the "5" in red ink next to the "7" in black on a taxi receipt as noted by BJB downthread.
Mr. Jessop, I haven't changed any for a while, so did so as a precaution (not everything, just stuff that's particularly important).
I tend to write mine down. I have bloody tons and can occasionally be absent-minded.
Cunningly, my luddite nature means online banking isn't an issue.
Mr. Dancer, While you are on and there is all this talk about expenses I am reminded to ask you, have you got yourself a decent accountant yet? As a self-employed author there is all sorts of stuff that the revenue people will accept as legitimate and necessary expenses that can be offset against income (e.g. your computer costs, the books you buy, the DVDs you buy any travel that is related to research) and if you are not claiming them you are daft.
She's not poor, disabled and being kicked out of her home because of the bedroom tax. She's a wealthy and well connected career politician who will have a host of employment opportunities at her feet after a stint in the cabinet. As culture secretary she could easily leverage that into any number of appointments in media or arts related boards, trusts and charities. She also went and didn't need to get booted so it's hugely unlikely she will face any wrath from the Cameroon leadership. Quite the reverse. She'll be taken care of and looked after for not turning on Cammie.
Your touching concern for this saintly martyr among MPs is beginning to sound just a trifle incredible, don't you think?
Do you actually think she was dragged kicking and screaming to this horrible cabinet job or do you think it's somewhat more likely she was absolutely delighted to get a juicy posting most tory backbenchers would dream of getting? A posting she then self-evidently f**ked up Royally whether the out of touch spinners want to admit it or not.
I've never dared to claim a single penny for anything I wasn't entitled to. It's probably the same for most other ordinary people. That's why they can't stand people like Miller.
She was found not guilty of any wrongdoing. What's your point?
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
ROFL
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark. Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
So now I am a Blairite just because I didn't join the mob. ROFL indeed.
Poor old Pork.
I really hope the police don't raid his sty.
The thought of them finding all those old video clips on his hard disk is too horrendous to contemplate.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
Mr. Jessop, I haven't changed any for a while, so did so as a precaution (not everything, just stuff that's particularly important).
I tend to write mine down. I have bloody tons and can occasionally be absent-minded.
Cunningly, my luddite nature means online banking isn't an issue.
Mr. Dancer, While you are on and there is all this talk about expenses I am reminded to ask you, have you got yourself a decent accountant yet? As a self-employed author there is all sorts of stuff that the revenue people will accept as legitimate and necessary expenses that can be offset against income (e.g. your computer costs, the books you buy, the DVDs you buy any travel that is related to research) and if you are not claiming them you are daft.
That's right - he can also claim for the heat and light he uses (presuming his home is also his office).
She's not poor, disabled and being kicked out of her home because of the bedroom tax. She's a wealthy and well connected career politician who will have a host of employment opportunities at her feet after a stint in the cabinet. As culture secretary she could easily leverage that into any number of appointments in media or arts related boards, trusts and charities. She also went and didn't need to get booted so it's hugely unlikely she will face any wrath from the Cameroon leadership. Quite the reverse. She'll be taken care of and looked after for not turning on Cammie.
Your touching concern for this saintly martyr among MPs is beginning to sound just a trifle incredible, don't you think?
Do you actually think she was dragged kicking and screaming to this horrible cabinet job or do you think it's somewhat more likely she was absolutely delighted to get a juicy posting most tory backbenchers would dream of getting? A posting she then self-evidently f**ked up Royally whether the out of touch spinners want to admit it or not.
Fairness is fairness. She has been treated unfairly.
@AveryLP often reminds me of that great Noel Coward song, I can't think why:
Have you had any word Of that bloke in the Third', Was it Avery, Lympe-Pole, or Seth? They had him thrown out of the club in Bombay For, apart from his mess bill exceeding his pay, He took to pig-sticking in quite the wrong way. I wonder what happened to him!
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
ROFL
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark. Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
So now I am a Blairite just because I didn't join the mob. ROFL indeed.
Poor old Pork.
I really hope the police don't raid his sty.
The thought of them finding all those old video clips on his hard disk is too horrendous to contemplate.
Today I have been branded a Blairite and a Rich Labourite - neither is a true description.
I suspect there are more erroneous monikers to come.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
ROFL
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark. Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
So now I am a Blairite just because I didn't join the mob. ROFL indeed.
Poor old Pork.
I really hope the police don't raid his sty.
The thought of them finding all those old video clips on his hard disk is too horrendous to contemplate.
You must be confusing me with Cameron's friend and close advisor, Seth O Logue
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
I replied to your earlier rant on this a couple of days ago, but you may not have seen it. Some of your facts are simply wrong. * Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison. * You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness * You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen) * Virtually all expenses must be receipted * Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
So this week we see a loose, unlikely affiliation of a couple of fair-minded PB Lefties and a few bright and reasonable Tories sieges by a collection of everyone else, who seem to have taken leave of their senses.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
John Terry, not guilty
Not England captain, not going to the World Cup
Your heart must be bleeding
I defended Terry at the time. I would not pick him now as he is a disruptive influence. Nothing to do with his court case.
The poor little blighter had all the stress of a court case, where his uneducated ways and lack of eloquence were ridiculed in the National press. He was found innocent, helped by the testimony of his friend Ashley Cole, who for his part was mercilessly taunted by Rio Ferdinand as a "choc ice"
Welcomed back into the fold by his club, he was then forced to go through the whole sorry process again by the FA in order to play for his country.. an innocent man, and Englands best centre half, it was all too much for him. His international career was over, his dreams of glory unfulfilled.
Comments
The idea that every scandal is measured by the niceties of employment law is naive and laughable nonsense. It's politics and it's certainly understood by every single MP who tries to climb the greasy pole.
I don't quite see why Labour had to comment on the mini re-shuffle while it was going on or indeed at all. Criticise the Minister for what they do or say by all means but it seems foolish to have a go at them for simply being chosen.
That said, Hodges as usual overplays his hand completely and allows his vitriol toward the current Labour leadership to colour his analysis.
I wonder whether Danny Alexander is happy to see the back of Sajid Javid. I have to say while Javid may appeal to the Conservative faithful, I'm distinctly underwhelmed thus far. His attack on Ed Miliband over Ukraine was clumsy and poor politics.
I know little or nothing about Nicky Morgan but wish her well in her new post.
The Osborne grip on the Government grows of course ever stronger and it's quite clear to this observer that a Cameron "retirement" as Prime Minister in the next Parliament would leave Osborne in a very strong position.
If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
18 grand. For being demoted or resigning from the cabinet. Huhne claimed it. I don't think Laws did, even though he was eligible, even after only 2 weeks in the job. Miller can claim it, if she wants.
If a PM decides he needs a woman in the cabinet, why does the taxpayer have to bung 18 grand to the poor sap who gets binned? Maybe Cameron or the Tory party should pay it.
TFS
As Richard pointed out it is only two months pay.
And as you pointed out, if you were offered only two months pay for loss of your job, you would be "straight on to Thompsons".
I suspect you would be even more aggrieved if your constructive dismissal/resignation was:
a) without notice;
b) followed an eighteen month inquiry into your conduct which acquitted you of all major charges and only required you to apologise to your station colleagues;
c) was driven by a local press campaign mainly unrelated to your personal conduct.
Let's get some real perspective here.
Are we prepared to accept shares in the Co-operative Bank?
Why not have your own opinion rather than posting drivel from other people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26911952
LOL
Fact of the matter is nobody gets up to cabinet level by being a helpless wallflower.
Those who do so are ambitious and determined career politicians who will certainly be used to the machinations required to fulfill a public political role and just what that involves. If the PM wants a tearful sorry after you have f**ked up royally - or for you to put in some work at a charity for sick puppies - then you either do so or you know full well that you'll get payback down the line from him or his enforcers in the party. There is no shortage of MPs wanting to be in cabinet and never has been.
Likewise if a PM doesn't have the stomach to fire those who are plastered all over the TV for day after day after day - driving taxpayers to fury with their arrogant antics - then perhaps being PM is not for them.
You say Laws didn't take the cash. That's down to judgement. That's part of the job he signed up for. The manner of you leaving the job in the public eye may be as crucial as how you got it behind the scenes. Being out of touch with public opinion is not an asset and never has been.
If it were a Lib-Lab Coalition, I would get Vince to sell me shares at £45,000 market value for a purchase price of £5,800.
Even then it would be a shorting exercise.
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 50m
Maria Miller set to pick up £17k - TAX FREE - after quitting Cabinet job: http://bit.ly/1hsJOlL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26954540
- 5 year contract
- part time
- theft of expenses not considered a crime
- lying is acceptable
- redundancy payment if your contract is not renewed
- redundancy payment if you get demoted
- pension that vests faster than light, instantly vests fully if you retire early through illness, and you keep it even if you recover and go back to work
- unreceipted expenses
- tax free food allowance
- subsidised alcohol and food
- basic MP pay earned by hardly anyone - topped up by thousands a year for sitting on committees
- jobs for family and friends through the office allowance and no need to advertise the jobs
- no qualifications or experience of any kind whatsoever required - an 18-year-old (Emily Benn) is considered capable of doing the job.
The value of an MP is somewhere between Starbucks barista, social worker, and part qualified solicitor; say £20,000 a year, top whack. They are 15x overpaid IMO.
Any non-compliant claim or inaccurate calculation would then be referred back to the line manager, who would agree a correction with the claimant before money is paid. In the rare event of a discrepancy being discovered after the claims have been signed off and vetted, and reimbursed, the matter would be dealt with in a similar way, but with a claim back, probably with more senior management involvement.
Only if those involved in the approval and checking chain believed that the claim was fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate, would any disciplinary action be taken. Unless the amount misclaimed was very substantial a first transgression would probably result in a formal warning and required repayment.
In the event that a claim was disputed due to ambiguity or lack of express ruling in the company's formal expenses policy, then a decision would be made by senior management on a case by case basis.
What wouldn't happen would be either instant dismissal or a ten day campaign by the national press designed to force a resignation and further wider political goals.
Claiming that "in the real world" Maria would have "arrested" and dismissed just wouldn't happen.
Even in the Totalitarian Socialist Republic of an Independent Scotland!
More free scots, than scot free.
I fear for your countrymen, come September 19th.
Then there's the problem of remembering them all (especially for people like me, who work for several different firms concurrently). There're various techniques that can be used, including the following. It's not perfect, but it's a trade-off between security and practicality.
http://blog.jgc.org/2010/12/write-your-passwords-down.html
*As I predicted on here yesterday the King of the Hodges will somehow find a way to say Mariagate is a disaster for Ed Miliband.
Do you have a counter argument?
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/vote-share-performances-in-council-by.html
The Conservatives vote share spread looks the best. The LDs the worst.
Basingstoke electors should have a right of recall over Maria Miller
MPs should be employed 4 days a week sometime else and we could give up the charade of herding them through lobbies on someone else's orders whilst they have a hoard of recent graduates acting as glorified social workers on their behalf, at our expense.
One day a week should be plenty of time to have the substantive debates and votes really required, and would prevent them forgetting it's a privilege rather than a source of income.
I tend to write mine down. I have bloody tons and can occasionally be absent-minded.
Cunningly, my luddite nature means online banking isn't an issue.
If someone submitted a claim for say a taxi fare of £75 it would be paid in the first instance but post-audited. If the receipt was missing, or was for £7 in black biro with 5 added after it in red marker pen, then probably the employee would first be suspended, and then dismissed without notice or reference.
What is simply incredible about the Maria Miller case is that she is a/ a lawyer and b/ organised enough to claim 99.87% of the permissible maximum. Yet she claims to have misunderstood the rules, because they were confusing.
So she was able to optimise her claims to within a few quid of the maximum, but she didn't understand the rules. Yeah, right.
And further - she just went ahead and claimed and trousered the money. Again, if I am not sure I am owed money I don't assume it's mine and claim it. I ask first to find out if it's claimable.
I don't believe her. In a way she has done us a service though because the shameful let-off and her general obnoxiousness when challenged speaks volumes about how arrogantly entitled these sordid prostitutes feel.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/09/21/david-miliband-has-won-says-dan-hodges/
Right of recall is vital to restore faith in our democracy. Anti politics is not a passing mood but permanent shift bt governed/governing
* Expenses theft is considered a crime. That's why several MPs have gone to prison.
* You don't, contrary to what you've twice said, keep a pension if you return to work after illness
* You don't get any money for sitting on committees (except chairmen)
* Virtually all expenses must be receipted
* Nobody anywhere near it would think it part-time - a 70-hour week is commonplace. (One can argue about how well-directed the work is, but that's true of many jobs)
Obviously there's scope to debate how useful the work is and what it ought to be paid. But you're slinging out allegations which are simply made up (I accept that you may be just misinformed and not making them up yourself), and that doesn't help a sensible discussion.
ConservativeHome @ConHome
Four out of five Tory members believe that Maria Miller should quit the Cabinet http://bit.ly/1sxtFPh
If Maria Miller had upfront in her apology said she would be more comfortable to repay 45k perhaps she wouldn't have had to resign?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-26957478
What a ****.
Maria Miller's spokesman says of the£17,000 payoff she gets as departing Cabinet minister: 'She's giving it to a local charity'
That's not what would happen where I work.
If someone submitted a claim for say a taxi fare of £75 it would be paid in the first instance but post-audited. If the receipt was missing, or was for £7 in black biro with 5 added after it in red marker pen, then probably the employee would first be suspended, and then dismissed without notice or reference.
What is simply incredible about the Maria Miller case is that she is a/ a lawyer and b/ organised enough to claim 99.87% of the permissible maximum. Yet she claims to have misunderstood the rules, because they were confusing.
...
In my day of claimed expenses, the formula was
advance or drawn cash less receipted expenditure = "airport snacks".
If the size of airport snacks were over-suggestive of gluttony then a multiple was applied to the number (not value) of taxi fares.
Miller was a victim of the permissive parliamentary expenses system and no more or less culpable for unreasonable claims than the majority of MPs.
Specifically, she did seek guidance on the eligibility of her mortgage interest claims from the HoC expenses office. It was only the over strict interpretation of the rules on remortgaging that led to the Standards Commissioner retrospectively calculating the 40K plus repayment.
The Standards Committee found (quite reasonably) that mortgage loan amounts fixed at the time the claimant originally became an MP should be treated as original loan amounts for the purpose of interest claims. The Committee's ruling was consistent with guidance given by the expenses office at the time.
The Standards Commissioner accepted this interpretation, after the Standards Committee made this ruling. This was not irregular as it was not within the Commissioner's remit to make such an interpretation when making her original recommendation.
As to the claims for mortgage interest, this could easily have been a genuine error. Looking back to when I received a mortgage interest subsidy, the practice was to set a monthly payment based on the previous year's mortgage lender's statement of interest paid. The monthly amount was then adjusted the following year to take into account any rate fluctuations during the year as evidenced by the subsequent annual statement. In years with many rate changes, the calculations could get quite complicated. I suspect that the HoC did not have such a system in place and required MPs to submit interest rate claims for short prior periods at a time when full documentation was not available from the mortgage lender. It is easy to see how errors could be made.
Maria Miller should have been more diligent in her interest repayment claims but I suspect she, like very many others, fell into a pattern of "put what you think is right and wait for the money" culture which was pervasive at the time.
Miller definitely sinned but I still think she was more sinned against than sinning.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc251120-bfee-11e3-b6e8-00144feabdc0.html
"One senior Tory MP said it again exposed failings in the prime minister’s political and media operation: “He doesn’t think ahead,” the MP said.
“Number 10 could have had a strategy, worked with her on her personal apology, made sure she ate humble pie, tried to save her. But we were a million miles away from that and some of us are getting fed up with it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQEKHLJsTY8
Or not.
Do you really think that excuse held that much water back then? Seems more than a touch eccentric to think it will be believed by the public now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-blanchard/maria-miller-a-pr-disaste_b_5116047.html
Carrying those posts should be no burden for such an Herculean specimen.
Reading that artcle is the equivalent of watching Pistorius's testimony.
That a clearly decent woman, having faced an inquiry under the system laid out by her own employer and been found not guilty, has been hounded out by the rule of the mob. Were that not bad enough, it's not enough. It seems she must face the sickening sanctimonious rants of a frothing press and essentially forced to give a payoff, to which she was rightfully entitled, to a local charity. Her life and career is in tatters. And yet two words have been lost amid the bloodthirsty baying: not guilty.
Will come back later for PB's review of them.
Out of touch Cameroons joined by out of touch Blairites being far closer to the mark.
Not that there's anything remotely unusual in that given the Sainted Blair's avaricious nature.
Total female candidates selected so far: 143 = 40.5%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
ROFL indeed.
I am sure Socrates's claim is true, but such events are very rare, and certainly not normal practice in most multi-nationals.
Two things to consider.
The reasons given by individuals for their summary dismissal are often at odds with what is recorded on file by the dismissing company.
Some companies wishing to get rid of a 'difficult' employee have been known to retrospectively scrutinise expense claims as it can be quite easy to find due cause for summary dismissal hidden in the documents. A bit like looking for the "5" in red ink next to the "7" in black on a taxi receipt as noted by BJB downthread.
She's not poor, disabled and being kicked out of her home because of the bedroom tax.
She's a wealthy and well connected career politician who will have a host of employment opportunities at her feet after a stint in the cabinet. As culture secretary she could easily leverage that into any number of appointments in media or arts related boards, trusts and charities. She also went and didn't need to get booted so it's hugely unlikely she will face any wrath from the Cameroon leadership. Quite the reverse. She'll be taken care of and looked after for not turning on Cammie.
Your touching concern for this saintly martyr among MPs is beginning to sound just a trifle incredible, don't you think?
Do you actually think she was dragged kicking and screaming to this horrible cabinet job or do you think it's somewhat more likely she was absolutely delighted to get a juicy posting most tory backbenchers would dream of getting? A posting she then self-evidently f**ked up Royally whether the out of touch spinners want to admit it or not.
A tank takes to the streets, and goes on tour of Clifton.
I really hope the police don't raid his sty.
The thought of them finding all those old video clips on his hard disk is too horrendous to contemplate.
Not England captain, not going to the World Cup
Your heart must be bleeding
Are you sure it isn't an incursion by territory hungry Russians?
Have you had any word
Of that bloke in the Third',
Was it Avery, Lympe-Pole, or Seth?
They had him thrown out of the club in Bombay
For, apart from his mess bill exceeding his pay,
He took to pig-sticking in quite the wrong way.
I wonder what happened to him!
It is only half past seven!
I suspect there are more erroneous monikers to come.
sharon spears @shazzers14 Apr 5
David Cameron faces call to explain why Patrick Rock child porn inquiry went to 'Britain’s FBI' http://bit.ly/OlQ0z0
Good of you to remind us all that Cameron's judgement has never been excerable before.
Nothing to do with his court case.
Not England captain, not going to the World Cup
The poor little blighter had all the stress of a court case, where his uneducated ways and lack of eloquence were ridiculed in the National press. He was found innocent, helped by the testimony of his friend Ashley Cole, who for his part was mercilessly taunted by Rio Ferdinand as a "choc ice"
Welcomed back into the fold by his club, he was then forced to go through the whole sorry process again by the FA in order to play for his country.. an innocent man, and Englands best centre half, it was all too much for him. His international career was over, his dreams of glory unfulfilled.
Sob sob
and he was... not guilty