
Desperately clutching at any remaining cash they can get their mitts on.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:30,
archived)

"The Speaker has been trying to obstruct the release of this information for years. So as soon as the public found out what shits we are, I knew it was time for the Speaker to go."
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:34,
archived)

The thing is, when I was saying "All politicians are lying, self-serving, self-important, selfish scum only in it for themselves at the expense of whoever they can screw" two weeks ago, as I had been doing for years and years and years and years, people would reply with "Oh you're just trying to be fashionably cynical".
I don't know who I hate more - the politicians or the general public for being surprised and shocked.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:43,
archived)
I don't know who I hate more - the politicians or the general public for being surprised and shocked.


Outrage doesn't mean surprise. But I agree a lot of people seem shocked and I wonder why too.
Then I remember the public are idiots who think what the Sun wants them to think.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:54,
archived)
Then I remember the public are idiots who think what the Sun wants them to think.

"Daily Mail editors: underline the important words in your headlines to make it absolutely clear what it is you want your readership to think."
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 10:03,
archived)

whether you were saying that from the perspective of having looked into a large number of MP's personal arrangements, or from the perspective of just not bothering and writing them all off on some vague impression?
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 10:06,
archived)

And the consequent distrusting anyone who seeks a position of power or leadership.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 10:09,
archived)

"shit everyone's looking at us, quick look over there"
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:44,
archived)

CF the ID card debate - "Oo look! A pigeon!" *passes laws, passes laws*
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:46,
archived)


They don't look much like it at all

pffft
why do they persist in wearing fancy dress costumes?
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:31,
archived)
why do they persist in wearing fancy dress costumes?

that's what old men are wearing in the Gorbals these days.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:33,
archived)

Every news article I read assumes you already know
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:32,
archived)

with all of this expenses malarkey, he was the figurehead and spokesman for all the MPs who wanted to overturn the freedom of information requests for the claims files.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:33,
archived)

I personally think that he should go, but at the same time, I want the Queen to walk into Westminster Palace this week, slap Brown, Cameron et al round the face and just dissolve parliament.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:39,
archived)

and now Nick Clegg and a few others want an 'independent body' to oversee all expense matters.
So, when this blows over in a few years and they can start claiming things again,plus a 'bit' extra' - if it ever gets out in the open, the MPs can legitimtaley claim that it wasn't their doing, but the 'indepenedent body', thus saving their own reputations.
/cynical
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:41,
archived)
So, when this blows over in a few years and they can start claiming things again,plus a 'bit' extra' - if it ever gets out in the open, the MPs can legitimtaley claim that it wasn't their doing, but the 'indepenedent body', thus saving their own reputations.
/cynical

Good lord, what a ridiculous mess.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:42,
archived)

but looking forward, it makes sense.
they can't realisitcally up the MPs salries too much in the current climate/media watch to cover the amount they were claiming in expenses, as they'll just be ripped apart further, so, it makes sense for a measure like this, take a hit for 18 months or so until this all dies down, and then start manipulating the 'independent body' to squeeze a bit more for the MPs.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:44,
archived)
they can't realisitcally up the MPs salries too much in the current climate/media watch to cover the amount they were claiming in expenses, as they'll just be ripped apart further, so, it makes sense for a measure like this, take a hit for 18 months or so until this all dies down, and then start manipulating the 'independent body' to squeeze a bit more for the MPs.

grew out of parliament being scared to put up their own wages in the early 90s because they feared a public backlash (basically, in a similar situation to now, the Tories knew they were on their last legs and didn't want to make it worse), so they came up with other ways to recompense themselves.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:52,
archived)

The fees office, by approving things like bags of manure, moat dredging and such have clearly fucked up majorly themselves. The fact is that 99% of people have fucked up and taken the absolute piss. Michael Martin wont be the last person to go.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:43,
archived)

But she had a good point when she pointed out that less than 100 MPs expenses have been shown to be morally grey/spurious/fraudulent. Meaning there are around 550 MPs who have not been taking the piss.
Or just haven't been caught.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:46,
archived)
Or just haven't been caught.

and to think I narrowly missed elbowing her in the face last week outside norwich train station (purely by accident, I turned around too quickly)
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:49,
archived)

she is clearly one of the few MPs who seem to have unflappable morals. And is allegedly one of only about 6 MPs who live outside London who has claimed nothing on a 2nd home at all, or a negligible amount at most.
When it comes to what has been published, and who has been guilty, it must be noted that The Telegraph have only published the expenses that will make the best stories, understandably. I am sure that once all the expenses are made public domain, there will be a lot more.
Of course, one can not say that all MPs are corrupt, that is simply unfair. I would still like to believe that the majority of MPs become so for the right reasons.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:52,
archived)
When it comes to what has been published, and who has been guilty, it must be noted that The Telegraph have only published the expenses that will make the best stories, understandably. I am sure that once all the expenses are made public domain, there will be a lot more.
Of course, one can not say that all MPs are corrupt, that is simply unfair. I would still like to believe that the majority of MPs become so for the right reasons.

Only, the "independent body" won't have to publish it's results.
Surprised? Of course not.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:45,
archived)
Surprised? Of course not.

But the fact that he a) chaired a group trying to get MPs totally exempt from FoI requests and b) started attacking in the Commons those MPs who were pushing hard for the expenses figures to be released mean that he clearly isn't suitable for the job. I'm sure some MPs have been calling for his head just to make it appear that they're "doing something" about the expenses issue, but he's not a blameless scapegoat.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:42,
archived)

Kate Hoey was nothing short of disraceful and insolent.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:46,
archived)

is surely the nub of this case: Martin was boss of the Fees Office, and he has -- by the accounts that have come out -- used his considerable powers to obstruct efforts to sort out the crazy mess of MP's expenses rules.
This cess-pit has been whiffing since 2004 (Derek Conway) at least, and instead of urgently working on cleaning it up, Martin has been trying to cover it up.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 12:20,
archived)
This cess-pit has been whiffing since 2004 (Derek Conway) at least, and instead of urgently working on cleaning it up, Martin has been trying to cover it up.

he didn't do something about not doing something else but did do something that people felt he shouldn't do about something.
Effectively he's been forced out by MPs for not stopping them being greedy gits
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:34,
archived)
Effectively he's been forced out by MPs for not stopping them being greedy gits

"Oh, yes there is obviously a need to change the system, since it is allowing me to claim for moat cleanage, and that's not right."
THEN DON'T FUCKING CLAIM
Also, Has Margaret Beckett *never* had a chin??
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:36,
archived)
THEN DON'T FUCKING CLAIM
Also, Has Margaret Beckett *never* had a chin??

I know that normally it is wholly unacceptable to punch a woman, but if ever there was justification it was the unbridled arrogance of Margaret Beckett last week!
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:38,
archived)

Although I did want to twat the idiot in the audience who when asking her a question, and letting her reply, interrupted her with "How dare you talk to me like that??" - when she was just answering a question.
Fuck me, those audiences have some real mouth-breathers in them.
Still, Beckett needs a solid kick up her cobwebby mimsy.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:40,
archived)
Fuck me, those audiences have some real mouth-breathers in them.
Still, Beckett needs a solid kick up her cobwebby mimsy.

the audience were really pissing me off last week, by far the worst I have seen in a long while. I understand their frustration, but I don't watch QT every week to hear a bunch of hecklers.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:55,
archived)

:D
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:57,
archived)

www.b3ta.com/links/317051
The woman is a f*cking liability
/4.30 onwards
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:42,
archived)
The woman is a f*cking liability
/4.30 onwards

Fuck me.
"They want to sit down at the table with us and blow the table up".
Chris Morris couldn't have said it better.
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:47,
archived)
"They want to sit down at the table with us and blow the table up".
Chris Morris couldn't have said it better.

She is a fucking idiot that woman.
Wasn't there a piece on her in The Telegraph about taking shedloads of expenses for nannies and such too?
( ,
Wed 20 May 2009, 9:56,
archived)
Wasn't there a piece on her in The Telegraph about taking shedloads of expenses for nannies and such too?
