Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
I'm sorry
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 16:23
geoffrey_prime wrote:
ok, so how are you going to vote in the next 3 elections?

I have no idea. Chances are I won't vote, or else I'll help a fringe socialist candidate keep their deposit if there's one I like the look of. But that'd just be a protest against the mainstream as opposed to an endorsement of the candidate.

As I've said here on numerous occasions, I'm not actually a democrat and don't believe that representative democracy is an appropriate political system for us right now. Which doesn't mean, of course, that I don't have the right to be outraged at the corruption of elected politicians.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 16:24
geoffrey_prime wrote:
A challenge for you - say something nice about a politician.. spread a bit of positivity.

Why is it "spreading a bit of positivity" to say something nice about politicians?

Say something nice about dying painfully of colon cancer... go on! Spread a bit of positivity!

If I think the political class is corrupt and requires overthrowing (in whatever manner), then saying nice things about them is surely spreading negativity? No?
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 16:46
geoffrey_prime wrote:
You are talking crap anyway, Cameron's claims are limited to mortgage interest and utility bills on his second home... which is exactly what MP's should be claiming for... and nothing more.

My whole point is that MPs shouldn't be claiming their "mortgage interest and utility bills" from the public purse. It may be within the rules, but guess who sets the rules?

It's weird, it's like a mafia boss insisting the murder he's committed shouldn't be punished because it was carried out according to the rules laid down by the Cosa Nostra code.

This "second home allowance" nonsense is just a way of declaring corruption within the rules. Why didn't British MPs go the route of more transparent democracies and commission a block of small but functional apartments owned by the public for use by MPs when parliament is in session? Why decide upon a system that allows MPs to build up bleeding property portfolios on expenses?

The whole system is corrupt, and any real Conviction Politician would have set an example a long, long time ago and would not have waited until the media descended.

The guy's a millionaire. He rakes in over a 100 grand per year as leader of the opposition, and doubtlessly has a nice little sideline in after-dinner speeches and magazine columns. He lambasts the public services for their lack of financial responsibility. Yet he couldn't resist that extra £20k per year in expenses for a second home.

And given that his constituency is Witney (an hour by train from central London), why the hell does he need the second home anyway? It's not like he'd face a commute from Aberdeen every day. He lives 10 minutes from Oxford for crying out loud!
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Edited May 15, 2009, 17:02
Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 17:01
Merrick wrote:

As soon as people see words like 'swimming pool', 'tennis court', 'chandelier' and - my favourite - 'moat' it says 'vast luxury like you and everyone you know never get', and there's nothing that can convince us it can be 'reasonable' for us to be paying anything towards it.




Eric Joyce who is fairly local to us is well known for being either the 1st or 2nd highest claimee in the whole land when it comes to expenses.

Because that is mainly for travelling expenses, it does not seem as newsworthy. Bath plugs and indeed moats are far more so it seems.

However, although some of this is so that he can flirt between Europe and back (doing feck knows what), and that he has *vowed to try* to reduce the cost of his travelling, he also claims for expenses to visit his estranged family.

Now, how many men and women get help with that sort of thing? It's a personal responsibility thing, right? I don't think this has made the Telegraph hit list (I may be wrong), but why not?

His constituency office is also a nice little converted cottage where some of the others get by with several rooms in a shared office block.

x
PMM
PMM
3141 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 17:27
geoffrey_prime wrote:
I love these posts...but hasn't anyone got anything positive to say about at least 1 politician? There are some! OK, putting the Tories to one side...hasn't anyone got something good to say about an MP who hasn't got a 2nd home, hasn't been claiming excessive expenses etc..
Would be quite refreshing to hear something nice for a change..


As I've mentioned before, back in the day, These guys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Nellist

Refused to take their full parliamentary salary. Fields was sponsored by the fire brigade union and tok home the wage of a fireman. Nellist took the wage of a skilled factory worker. The rest they gave back to the Labour movement.

I see this as something worthy of admiration. Seems a tad more principled than the current shower of careerists, don't you think?
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 18:13
I certainly dont see anything to admire in either of them.
You seem to be fixated with people not talking their full salaries for some reason - why is that an issue? And on millionaires - why shouldn't you earn a salary or be entitled to claim due expenses, if you are a millionaire? Should they work for free then?
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 18:15
Sorry, the millionaire comment was in reply to Grufty Jims last post above..
PMM
PMM
3141 posts

Edited May 15, 2009, 18:39
Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 18:29
That's kind of irrelevent. You asked for something positive to be said. I said something positive. You then pissed all over my positivity.

About par for the course really, Geoffrey.

As far as the "obsession" with people not taking their full salaries goes, I think they were prepared to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Conviction politicians, see. I thought you'd approve.

So compare and contrast. Principled politicians prepared to stick to their beliefs Vs ... Well you can see what we have now. Are you suggesting that principles are nothing to be admired?

As far as your second statement goes, if they didn't expect others to be means tested in order to recieve state money, perhaps they'd get a more sympathetic hearing.
PMM
PMM
3141 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 18:30
but thank you for being big enough to apologise.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 15, 2009, 18:43
geoffrey_prime wrote:
I certainly dont see anything to admire in either of them.

Earlier you insisted that Cameron isn't "in it for the money" because, essentially, he doesn't really need the money.

If you ask me, those two politicians (for all their undoubted faults) actually represent the behaviour of someone who genuinely isn't in it for the money. While someone who claims £80 thousand of public money for a house he really doesn't need... well, let's say it's not quite so clearcut.

The point is not that Cameron might be in it for that extra £80k, but that his actions are those of someone who is in it for himself. Whether it's fame or power or status he craves isn't the issue, this trip he's on is all about Cameron.

But a politician that forgoes the financial perks and insists upon better representing his constituents by living on the same average wage they do...? By their deeds do we judge them.

geoffrey_prime wrote:
You seem to be fixated with people not talking their full salaries for some reason - why is that an issue?

No. I'm fixated upon a man draining money he doesn't need from the public purse while simultaneously proposing cuts in health spending. Or education. I don't have an automatic problem with anyone who is a millionaire. We live in a world where the unequal accumulation of wealth is ubiquitous. If, without exploitation, you succeed in becoming a millionaire, then well done you.

But the second homes of millionaires (whether politicians, businessmen or rock stars) shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer. Not so long as there's a single person on a single hospital waiting list. Isn't that just obvious? How is there even an ethical grey area here?

And just because the rules allow the wealthy to claim public money doesn't mean that they should. I mean, isn't that exactly the kind of thing the tories say is wrong with the country? Taxes are too high because public money is being frittered away where it's not needed?

How come it's suddenly OK when it's the expense accounts of millionaire politicians, but isn't OK when it's childcare allowances for single mothers just above the poverty line?

Don't you see the contradiction? The rank hypocrisy?
Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index