|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 1, 2019 16:36:15 GMT
Oh dear oh dear. I am sorry to have to say this but the statement that the MP expense scandal was caused by the European Parliament had to be one of the most moronic comments I have seen on here. And it’s up against some stiff competition! Then descending into sub-Trumpian bullshit about ‘draining the swamp’ makes thing even worse. Well a remoaner such as yourself who can’t accept that the majority of the electorate who turned out to vote took a different opinion from you would say that. Er, what - if anything - has that got to do with the substantive point?
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 1, 2019 16:42:56 GMT
Oh dear oh dear. I am sorry to have to say this but the statement that the MP expense scandal was caused by the European Parliament had to be one of the most moronic comments I have seen on here. And it’s up against some stiff competition! Then descending into sub-Trumpian bullshit about ‘draining the swamp’ makes thing even worse. So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Something that infected all parties and, if my memory serves me right, all ages of MPs but more so the long serving ones. I presume you do not do irony. Firstly, I think "the expenses scandal" is a less than helpful term, ranging as it does from utter criminality (some of the false mortgage claims) via the morally indefensible (such as the "flipping") via unwise extravagance (the "John Lewis List") to minor oversights (such as failing to cross the odd item off a receipt) and petty claims (staples and rubber bands). So to identify a "fundamental cause" is probably impossible. But to pin the blame on the European Parliament is, may I suggest, imaginative.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,264
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 1, 2019 16:57:34 GMT
So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Greed.
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 17:02:29 GMT
So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Greed. So if a large number of our MPs as a group suffer from one of the "deadly sins", than can they in all honesty be called "Honourable"?
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 17:11:23 GMT
So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Something that infected all parties and, if my memory serves me right, all ages of MPs but more so the long serving ones. I presume you do not do irony. Firstly, I think "the expenses scandal" is a less than helpful term, ranging as it does from utter criminality (some of the false mortgage claims) via the morally indefensible (such as the "flipping") via unwise extravagance (the "John Lewis List") to minor oversights (such as failing to cross the odd item off a receipt) and petty claims (staples and rubber bands). So to identify a "fundamental cause" is probably impossible. But to pin the blame on the European Parliament is, may I suggest, imaginative. As in almost all cases of group misdemeanours there is a spectrum of severity. But the behaviour of a large number was totally unacceptable and as so called Honourable Members unworthy of the name. That must surely rank as a scandal. Either they were infected by some malignant "virus" with a common cause emanating from the political system or the political parties were selecting a substantial number of potential MPs who are unsuitable for the position.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,379
|
Post by Crimson King on Jan 1, 2019 17:58:56 GMT
So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Greed. I beg to disagree. I would say fundamentally a lack of trust by MPs of one another leading to the inability of MPs to act collectively in accepting reasonable pay rises, instead being forced to forego them because some of their colleagues would do so. Add to this a view (which appears to have been held everywhere outside the tabloid press)that it was therefore ok to top up to a more reasonable level by maxing out the allowable expenses. Top up with a media who are happy to make hay with no thought for the long term consequences
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 1, 2019 18:09:39 GMT
Firstly, I think "the expenses scandal" is a less than helpful term, ranging as it does from utter criminality (some of the false mortgage claims) via the morally indefensible (such as the "flipping") via unwise extravagance (the "John Lewis List") to minor oversights (such as failing to cross the odd item off a receipt) and petty claims (staples and rubber bands). So to identify a "fundamental cause" is probably impossible. But to pin the blame on the European Parliament is, may I suggest, imaginative. As in almost all cases of group misdemeanours there is a spectrum of severity. But the behaviour of a large number was totally unacceptable and as so called Honourable Members unworthy of the name. That must surely rank as a scandal. Either they were infected by some malignant "virus" with a common cause emanating from the political system or the political parties were selecting a substantial number of potential MPs who are unsuitable for the position. That is a statement of opinion. How many is "a large number" ? And at what point does their behaviour become "totally unacceptable" ?
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 18:16:08 GMT
I beg to disagree. I would say fundamentally a lack of trust by MPs of one another leading to the inability of MPs to act collectively in accepting reasonable pay rises, instead being forced to forego them because some of their colleagues would do so. Add to this a view (which appears to have been held everywhere outside the tabloid press)that it was therefore ok to top up to a more reasonable level by maxing out the allowable expenses. Top up with a media who are happy to make hay with no thought for the long term consequences So it is perfectly OK for someone to cheat on their expenses if they feel they should earn more!! Or if they know someone in another division doing the same job as them earns more!! And wasn't their pay at one stage linked to a particular Civil Service grade. And who are they comparing themselves with? MEPs by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 18:37:15 GMT
As in almost all cases of group misdemeanours there is a spectrum of severity. But the behaviour of a large number was totally unacceptable and as so called Honourable Members unworthy of the name. That must surely rank as a scandal. Either they were infected by some malignant "virus" with a common cause emanating from the political system or the political parties were selecting a substantial number of potential MPs who are unsuitable for the position. That is a statement of opinion. How many is "a large number" ? And at what point does their behaviour become "totally unacceptable" ? I recall around 6 Senior Ministers resigned due to the scandal. Some 20 MPs declared that they would retire at the next election or were deselected although this was only the tip of the proverbial iceberg along the spectrum of misbehaving. None of the three main party leaders were exonerated. A custodial sentence must surely be classed as totally unacceptable but fiddling your expenses in most private companies normally leads to instant dismissal. Most people believe MPs should not claim they ought to be judged by different rules to their constituents.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 1, 2019 19:25:05 GMT
So if a large number of our MPs as a group suffer from one of the "deadly sins", than can they in all honesty be called "Honourable"? Well they aren't entitled to the prefix honourable at all it's just used as a matter of "courtesy" in the H of C and other legislative chambers.
You could say the "courtesy" is so that they don't say what they ( and plenty of others) really think about each other.....
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 19:54:09 GMT
So if a large number of our MPs as a group suffer from one of the "deadly sins", than can they in all honesty be called "Honourable"? Well they aren't entitled to the prefix honourable at all it's just used as a matter of "courtesy" in the H of C and other legislative chambers. You could say the "courtesy" is so that they don't say what they ( and plenty of others) really think about each other..... But if you are acting in a dishonourable manner by cheating then you forfeit respect and what goes with it.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 1, 2019 20:16:51 GMT
So if a large number of our MPs as a group suffer from one of the "deadly sins", than can they in all honesty be called "Honourable"? A large number of MPs suffer from more deadly sins than that one, I would suggest. A few could have a good go at the full set.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 1, 2019 21:07:40 GMT
Well they aren't entitled to the prefix honourable at all it's just used as a matter of "courtesy" in the H of C and other legislative chambers. You could say the "courtesy" is so that they don't say what they ( and plenty of others) really think about each other..... But if you are acting in a dishonourable manner by cheating then you forfeit respect and what goes with it. the point i was making is that the "respect" is an illusion and, to a certain extent, always has been.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 1, 2019 22:30:29 GMT
Well they aren't entitled to the prefix honourable at all it's just used as a matter of "courtesy" in the H of C and other legislative chambers. You could say the "courtesy" is so that they don't say what they ( and plenty of others) really think about each other..... But if you are acting in a dishonourable manner by cheating then you forfeit respect and what goes with it. 1. You are using the current tense, but referring to past events. 2. Why is it so important what expression is used? (We refer to Mayors as Your Worship, but we don't ... ... worship them.)
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 22:49:54 GMT
But if you are acting in a dishonourable manner by cheating then you forfeit respect and what goes with it. 1. You are using the current tense, but referring to past events. 2. Why is it so important what expression is used? (We refer to Mayors as Your Worship, but we don't ... ... worship them.) I started my original comments by saying I thought it was the political class that is the problem. The scandal of MPs expenses is just one example where I truly believe the EU is not only corrupt but corrupting. In this case the corruption was towards the brown envelope end of the spectrum where fiddling of expenses was widespread. I have personally seen where the corruption took the form of ossifying technological regulations in an attempt to preserve out-dated production methods to the detriment of new entrants. One can respect the position, be it MP, Mayor, CEO etc, as well as the person. One can respect the position but not the person. However if the conduct of the person becomes so grotesque it will quickly bring the position into disrepute. Speaker Martin may be one such fairly recent example.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 2, 2019 5:53:02 GMT
But if you are acting in a dishonourable manner by cheating then you forfeit respect and what goes with it. 1. You are using the current tense, but referring to past events. It's a standard English construction. Conditional statement with the condition in the present tense. If it is raining then you get wet. Alternatively, present-tense narration: narrating the past from the point of view of being there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 2, 2019 8:13:30 GMT
The "expenses scandal" was one of the biggest storms in a teacup in recent years. Most of the MPs pilloried were doing no more than following the rules they had been told to follow. A small number were found to be acting illegally. Meanwhile there is constant evidence of people in positions of power in the private sector abusing the system for personal gain. Presumably these are the people so much more able than MPs that Middle englander identifies. Libor, insider dealing, the Shell fiddling of reserves for bonuses, the vast golden goodbyes given to failures. At best we have a culture of legal tax avoidance which is morally dubious. All these things including bribes existed in politics and private enterprise long before the EU, and blaming the EU fir them is just bizarre. But presumably you will join me in criticising Farage for exploiting the EU expenses and pension system as assiduously as anyone else, and at our expense as taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 2, 2019 8:24:31 GMT
On mendacious populism, I should probably just have said "fake news" or "downright lies aimed at influencing public opinion" . The political class and people like Steve Bannon who are behind them on both sides of the divide are responsible. It is MUCH more dangerous than fiddling a few expenses.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 2, 2019 10:37:09 GMT
A relatively small number of people in the "expenses scandal" committed serious offences, several of these were quite rightly jailed.
Much of the rest was hype, trivia, and distortion. Which suited the purposes of the right wing press at that time (given both that Labour were in power, and their hostility to the idea of political involvement more generally) but also reflected a long standing media inability to sort wheat from chaff, which has got no better since.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 2, 2019 10:39:06 GMT
A relatively small number of people in the "expenses scandal" committed serious offences, several of these were quite rightly jailed. Much of the rest was hype, trivia, and distortion. Which suited the purposes of the right wing press at that time (given both that Labour were in power, and their hostility to the idea of political involvement more generally) but also reflected a long standing media inability to sort wheat from chaff, which has got no better since. Not an inability I would say, but a disinclination.
|
|