THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Fergie 307]

I’m not sure your interpretation of what happened is correct.

Here’s the official findings which is quite clear that they acted properly.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmstnprv/1044/1044.pdf

I’m not defending them out of any political allegiance but I don’t think it’s fair to slag someone off for something they didn’t do.

The criticism was primarily about the morals of the case.
Each claimed the allowance in full. So two claims were being made where in any other circumstances there would only have been one.
Technically not in breach of the rules as they were not written in anticipation of two MPs being married.
So they basically each claimed the full allowance as an MP, despite the fact that they were living together as husband and wife and any actual expenditure was shared. This point is made in the conclusions, together with the recommendation that the rules should be amended. The suggestion being that in the case of two married MPs one should be able to claim the full allowance, the second should be abated.
Both must have known full well that they were claiming twice the amount owing to a loophole in the rules. So whilst it might not technically be in breach of the rules at the time it was certainly immoral, and very hard to find any real excuse once it was revealed.
Which is why, as I understand it, they repaid one set of expenses, something in excess of £40k.
So yes they did do it.

 

[niemeyjt]

I listen to the radio and every day it seems that the Conservatives are promising something else if re-elected.

I think - why promise - why have you not just done it in the past 14 years?

And I still think Labour, if they do what they promise and don't listen, will make matters worse in the NHS (again), housing (again) and education.

As I said above, I think politicians need to stop trying to do new things and instead reverse the ****-ups of previous governments of both persuasions,

 

[RobinBHM]

I listen to the radio and every day it seems that the Conservatives are promising something else if re-elected

I believe Conservatives have had 7 new growth plans in the last 14 years.

“Our last plan didn’t work, but please vote for our shiny new plan, it’ll come good this time”

 

[Jacob]

Farage on R4 just. Being hateful as usual - I think he arouses sympathy for them and gives immigrants a good name!
D Day on the telly. 5.5 million Muslims participated on the allied side of the war during WWII. Nearly 1.5 million Muslims were killed in action.

 

[Blackswanwood]

The criticism was primarily about the morals of the case.
Each claimed the allowance in full. So two claims were being made where in any other circumstances there would only have been one.
Technically not in breach of the rules as they were not written in anticipation of two MPs being married.
So they basically each claimed the full allowance as an MP, despite the fact that they were living together as husband and wife and any actual expenditure was shared. This point is made in the conclusions, together with the recommendation that the rules should be amended. The suggestion being that in the case of two married MPs one should be able to claim the full allowance, the second should be abated.
Both must have known full well that they were claiming twice the amount owing to a loophole in the rules. So whilst it might not technically be in breach of the rules at the time it was certainly immoral, and very hard to find any real excuse once it was revealed.
Which is why, as I understand it, they repaid one set of expenses, something in excess of £40k.
So yes they did do it.

I'd suggest that's some way from a full/accurate representation of what actually happened as described in the report.

Both checked before submitting their claim and were told it was in order by the Director responsible for paying expenses and allowances.

They didn't claim the maximum.

In making the suggestion that the rules for married MPs be reconsidered the report does say that both being able to claim may not be appropriate. It also acknowledges though that,"two cannot live for the cost of one" and that the matter is complex.

It's not covered in the report but the only repayment I can find any reference to is in respect of mortgage interest where pro £1000 was reclaimed or them and a whole host of other MPs.

There are plenty of instances of shocking abuses of the expenses system that occurred but when all the facts here are weighed (without political bias or other emotion) there isn't a case to answer.

 

[deema]

Many people who have been hugely successful have left school without any qualifications. Indeed, over my career I have organised and paid for over 1000 people to achieve at least 5 GCSEs from zero qualifications and a number we supported through to degrees. However everyone who has been successful has had to overcome / complete their education.

Why is this relevant? Well we have the deputy leader of labour who is proud that she left school without any qualifications and does not appear to have made any effort to resolve this lack of education. We don’t know, because she has apparently no qualifications what her reading age is for instance or if she is capable of basic maths. This now becomes very relevant and very serious if she attains any ministerial office or indeed becomes prime minister. We could have someone who can’t read or do simple maths running a key government department or indeed the country. This coupled with her undermining Keir yesterday by stating she doesn’t believe in maintaining our nuclear deterrence when the threat our dear Socialist friend Valadmire presents to us all evident by what he’s doing to Ukrainian and on the day we remember the cost in blood of liberating Europe on D Day shows a lack of comprehension.

 

[RobinBHM]

We could have someone who can’t read or do simple maths running a key government department or indeed the country

You only need 3 word slogans to run the country:

get brexit done
stop the boats
take back control
oven ready deal
wrong wrong wrong
build back better

sometimes even just 2 word slogans:

levelling up


extra education seems a waste

 

[Chris152]

her undermining Keir yesterday by stating she doesn’t believe in maintaining our nuclear deterrence when the threat our dear Socialist friend Valadmire presents to us all evident by what he’s doing to Ukrainian and on the day we remember the cost in blood of liberating Europe on D Day shows a lack of comprehension.

I didn't hear all that she said but what I did hear her say was that she'd seek to end nuclear arms per se, internationally. That's quite different from saying 'she doesn’t believe in maintaining our nuclear deterrence'. And it seems like a reasonable ambition to me.

As for her qualifications - they're not necessarily a sign of anyone's intelligence, ethics etc.

 

[John Brown]

Let's face it, Michelle Mone left school at 15 with no qualifications, and she's done alright for herself.

 

[Jake]

The criticism was primarily about the morals of the case.
Each claimed the allowance in full. So two claims were being made where in any other circumstances there would only have been one.

That's not correct, each claimed slightly more than 50% of their allowance as set out in the report, which is also clear that there is nothing immoral or wrong about that.

So they basically each claimed the full allowance as an MP, despite the fact that they were living together as husband and wife and any actual expenditure was shared.

No, wrong for the same reason as above.

This point is made in the conclusions, together with the recommendation that the rules should be amended. The suggestion being that in the case of two married MPs one should be able to claim the full allowance, the second should be abated.

The conclusion was that where MPs share accommodation, they should not claim 100% of their allowance each, but it is also said that it is not as simple as saying two people should only share one allowance because life does not work that way. So the recommendation is that MPs in such a situation should not each claim 100% of their allowance - as that was exactly what Balls and Cooper had done it was basically an endorsement of their approach, in an attempt to make sure that other MP's in a similar position followed the same approach of moderating their claims.

Both must have known full well that they were claiming twice the amount owing to a loophole in the rules. So whilst it might not technically be in breach of the rules at the time it was certainly immoral, and very hard to find any real excuse once it was revealed.

If you actually read the report you can see full well the lengths they went to try to make sure they were behaving legitimately by consulting with all the relevant authorities along the way. It sounds really painful tbh.

Which is why, as I understand it, they repaid one set of expenses, something in excess of £40k.
So yes they did do it.

I don't recall that and I can't find anything to say that is the case. It also doesn't fit the facts as what they did in respect of their shared claims seems entirely respectable.

The complaint made against them was not about claiming double, it was about a technical issue as to whether the new London home had to be declared their primary residence because on average they spent more nights there although it wasn't what they thought of as their family home. If that was the case, they'd have been entitled to claim on the Yorkshire home which they had owned for longer as their second home (and would have avoided capitals gains tax on their previous London home, which they said would have overall benefited them financially).

The report into MP's claims states that the only issue was a overpayment of £1363 each in respect of mortgage interest which they did repay.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmmemest/348/348.pdf

It's worth running through the list to see how overblown the whole expenses scandal was. With a relatively few very dishonourable exceptions most of the issues identified are small - simple administrative mistake in a pretty complex system of rules is a credible explanation for those on the face of it. That's not to excuse some of the exceptions which were shocking, but the way it's been used to tarnish all politicians as a class isn't really backed up by the overall findings.

 

[Jake]

our dear Socialist friend Valadmire

You seem to be stuck in the previous Cold War. Has all the change in Russian economic and political since the wall came down escaped you? Vlad crossed the horseshoe a long time ago, the problem being he's a wannabe Hitler in the making.

And he'd love to run the ending of WW2 in reverse to win where Hitler failed - hence picking off, co-opting and undermining all the nations around the fringe with the help of his right wing fifth columnists (aided by some stupid far leftists who also seem to have missed the transisition or else are just drawn to dictatorship more than direction).

 

[Jacob]

....our dear Socialist friend Valadmire ...

Russian communism or "socialism" ended in 1992.
"Valadmire's" style of government is very much to the right - a good old fashioned dictator.
The post communist governments were very much influenced by neo liberal theories coming from Thatcher and Reagan and have more in common with the tory party; de-regulation, free markets, nationalism, etc etc

 

[mudman]

Farage on R4 just. Being hateful as usual - I think he arouses sympathy for them and gives immigrants a good name!
D Day on the telly. 5.5 million Muslims participated on the allied side of the war during WWII. Nearly 1.5 million Muslims were killed in action.

Total British, Commonwealth and USA military deaths are given as just under 1 million so the 1.5million killed is unlikely. I don't know how many serving Muslim soldiers there were, the Indian Army was 2.5 million with about 40% being Muslim so 1 million. There were very many other soldiers that came from all over the war to fight for the Allies and a lot of very brave people did some very brave things and without whom the war could have gone on a lot longer. In the Burma campaign, there were 22 VCs awarded to soldiers of South Asian origin. Although it is undeniable that people of all religions, including Muslims were part of the Allied war effort, it is unhelpful to overstate numbers.
Were the figures you quoted from the BBC? You should know by now that BBC Verify isn't to be trusted.

 

[Jacob]

Total British, Commonwealth and USA military deaths are given as just under 1 million so the 1.5million killed is unlikely. I don't know how many serving Muslim soldiers there were, the Indian Army was 2.5 million with about 40% being Muslim so 1 million. There were very many other soldiers that came from all over the war to fight for the Allies and a lot of very brave people did some very brave things and without whom the war could have gone on a lot longer. In the Burma campaign, there were 22 VCs awarded to soldiers of South Asian origin. Although it is undeniable that people of all religions, including Muslims were part of the Allied war effort, it is unhelpful to overstate numbers.
Were the figures you quoted from the BBC? You should know by now that BBC Verify isn't to be trusted.

https://www.muslimwarmemorial.org/education/the-role-of-muslims-in-ww2/

 

[mudman]

https://www.muslimwarmemorial.org/education/the-role-of-muslims-in-ww2/

Just get out your sketch pad and a pencil and add up the numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Military_casualties_by_branch_of_service

Although edited to add that I neglected the figures for the Soviet Union which at 10 million, makes the Muslim war memorial claim feasible. With no breakdown of actual number available, it is unrealistic to make any claims. They start with 'It is said' and so are admitting that no one actually knows.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

You only need 3 word slogans to run the country:

get brexit done
stop the boats
take back control
oven ready deal
wrong wrong wrong
build back better

sometimes even just 2 word slogans:

levelling up


extra education seems a waste

The best by a big margin was the 1979 "Labour isn't working".

Increasingly political success relies on marketing - building on perceptions, ideas, aspirations. That the Tory Party have produced the memorable is a testament to their campaigning.

Labour have tried in the past - and mostly failed. The only one to resonate is the Blair "education, education, education". This time they have plastered their battle bus and literature with one word - "change". It doesn't inspire me - but perhaps others are truly motivated.

That slogans, rather than actual policies, are the currency of political campaigning is superficial is unarguable. Does it work - unambiguously yes.

 

[niemeyjt]

I offer "Reverse the ****-ups" as my three word slogan (if I am allowed a hyphenated word). I wish someone would.

 

[Jacob]

.... This time they have plastered their battle bus and literature with one word - "change". It doesn't inspire me - ...

nor me. It makes think they are begging for loose change. They are pretty skint having dumped a lot of members. Serves them right!

 

[RobinBHM]

Russian communism or "socialism" ended in 1992

although Russia has never been a communist nor socialist country

the definition is a: "social organization in which all property is owned by the community"

Russian forgot the small matter of handing it to the community

 

[Jacob]

although Russia has never been a communist nor socialist country

the definition is a: "social organization in which all property is owned by the community"

Russian forgot the small matter of handing it to the community

erewego again! Are you writing a dictionary or something?
The meaning of a word is what the user of the word means by it.
If you want to know what a communist or a socialist is, you start by asking one.
There may be no precise definition - in any case you'd have to go on to define property, owned, community, etc.