UK Parliment Faces Unprecedented Situation

[Gridlock 9]

This is been going on for like since the beginning of civilisation and goes on in every government in the world , i think so .

Its not just a british problem , we small time Donald Rumsfelt stole millions of barrels of oil , it didnt even make the media ..

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Gridlock Donald Rumsfelt stole millions of barrels of oilquote>

Say what? Source?

[Deathtoall 28]

Bah, parliaments are always in uproar, people getting political miles and the like. As to the recent anger there is always...

Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Anyone think they would like to blow up English Parliament to Tchaikovsky 1812 Overtune ala V for Vendetta style? (or just plain old Guy Fawkes)

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Deathtoall

Bah, parliaments are always in uproar, people getting political miles and the like. As to the recent anger there is always...

Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Anyone think they would like to blow up English Parliament to Tchaikovsky 1812 Overtune ala V for Vendetta style? (or just plain old Guy Fawkes)quote>

Not sure of your point. The issue with Guy Fawkes was relegion when you could be killed for being a different relegion.

The current issue is missuse of public money.

[EmergentFungus 29]

We need a general election straight away but sadly I think it's a very bad time. Its not a good idea to change government during recession especially as we're almost out of it.

Labour have done a good job at cleaning things up. Its just as well they're cleaning it up as they were in power duirng the credit/property boom the last 7 or 8 years.

Still, June 2010, we know its the Conservatives taking over. Better than labour but stil not who I support. If we had a general election and the Conservatives took over now, the stock market would take anotjher heavy beating, especially thge banks as the Conservatives have had some extreme views on what they would do.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: EmergentFungus

We need a general election straight away

Agreed

but sadly I think it's a very bad time. Its not a good idea to change government during recession especially as we're almost out of it.

Do you really believe that? The Labour government has borrowed heavily to mask the effects. We won't be out of it until that's paid back which will take years. That's if the countries good credit rating lasts that long.

Labour have done a good job at cleaning things up. Its just as well they're cleaning it up as they were in power duirng the credit/property boom the last 7 or 8 years.

This depends on who and what you believe, but yes the Labour government were in power on the lead-up to the problem, and Gordon Brown did famously promise that he had "put an end to boom and bust".

Still, June 2010, we know its the Conservatives taking over. Better than Labour but still not who I support. If we had a general election and the Conservatives took over now, the stock market would take anotjher heavy beating, especially thge banks as the Conservatives have had some extreme views on what they would do.quote>

Actually the stock-market usually likes a Conservative government and it normally increases with their pro business policies. But the market forces would have caused some of the banks to go bust which would have been the natural way to limit the excesses of the bankers, and would have prevented the bankers leaving with high pensions etc.. It would have also brought the price of houses down to a more reasonable level. The market will always level out if allowed to.

Hopefully Gordon Brown will realize that the longer he holds on the more damage he is doing to himself and the Labour Party, and apply for disolution and call the general election that the majority of the people of this country want.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Sickening. Anyone who took part in any of this should be removed next election. The sad thing is there is barely anything we can about it short of revolting. Sure we can vote them out, but who's to say that the next guy won't do the same thing?  quote>

The next guy probably won't do the same thing if there is some system of public disclosure of what they claim.  or even a better auditing process checking out what they are doing.

I don't know if there is a British equivalent of the US tax forms. (I have the impression there is not.)  Each year, we file a form declaring our income, the deductions we are claiming, and the total amount of tax we owe, the amount we have paid to date, and the difference.  High level public officials are expected to make their tax returns public.  

Additionally, government employees, from the President down to the mid-level grunts, are expected to declare all of their financial holdings.  Most of that doesn't go public, unless it is particularly noteworthy, but is reviewed by auditors and ethics officers within each agency.

Which is a different issue than the expenses government employees can claim in the course of their duties.  But that also involves filling out forms that are reviewed by the auditing staff.

Yes, it's a lot of paperwork and, yes, reducing goverment paperwork is a good idea.  but there has to be some form of documentation and review of expenses or people wind up using the tax payer money for illegal personal purposes.  It sounds to me like there is a major breakdown of the auditing system over there.

We trust these people to run our countries efficiently and keep us safe, and yet they spend recklessly and get us into trouble with other nations. I just want to unleash a rage storm on all of them. quote>

Which is the problem with trusting the government.   Much has been said, in various threads, about how Americans generally don't trust their government.   It is our job to check on them since they work for us.  The government is "of the people, by the people, for the people".   (Pleae note that I'm not claiming we always live up to our ideals here.  We do fall short of them.  I'm just saying what those ideals are.)

The philosophy in the UK seems to be a bit different.  The government doesn't work for you; you are subjects of the government.  I've had several British friends tell me this isn't a big deal and it's just semantic.   Maybe so.  I've spent a couple of weeks over there; that's not the same thing as living there and fully absorbing the culture.  But it does seem to me that Brits trust their government far more than Americans trust theirs.

Is that why these people were not under more scrutiny before this?  It took a Freedom of Information request to get this information?  That part just seems strange to me.   That government officials would behave this way does not.

Maybe I'm making too much of this.  Maybe it's just a major breakdown in the auditing system. 

At any rate, I hope you can get the scoundrels out of office and replace them with more honest people.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Sickening. Anyone who took part in any of this should be removed next election. The sad thing is there is barely anything we can about it short of revolting. Sure we can vote them out, but who's to say that the next guy won't do the same thing?  quote>

The next guy probably won't do the same thing if there is some system of public disclosure of what they claim.  or even a better auditing process checking out what they are doing.

I don't know if there is a British equivalent of the US tax forms. (I have the impression there is not.)

There is if you are self employed, own property for income, have additional income, or have stocks and shares, or a myraid of other reasons. The inland revenue send you the main document and whatever additional pages you need.

The only time you will not get one of these is if you only have one paid income working for a company. They are a nightmare to fill out, The chancellor and others paid for accountants to do it from public funds. We are NOT allowed to claim for accountants to fill ours in.

  Each year, we file a form declaring our income, the deductions we are claiming, and the total amount of tax we owe, the amount we have paid to date, and the difference.  High level public officials are expected to make their tax returns public.  

Additionally, government employees, from the President down to the mid-level grunts, are expected to declare all of their financial holdings.  Most of that doesn't go public, unless it is particularly noteworthy, but is reviewed by auditors and ethics officers within each agency.

Which is a different issue than the expenses government employees can claim in the course of their duties.  But that also involves filling out forms that are reviewed by the auditing staff.

Yes, it's a lot of paperwork and, yes, reducing goverment paperwork is a good idea.  but there has to be some form of documentation and review of expenses or people wind up using the tax payer money for illegal personal purposes.  It sounds to me like there is a major breakdown of the auditing system over there.

We trust these people to run our countries efficiently and keep us safe, and yet they spend recklessly and get us into trouble with other nations. I just want to unleash a rage storm on all of them. quote>

Which is the problem with trusting the government.   Much has been said, in various threads, about how Americans generally don't trust their government.   It is our job to check on them since they work for us.  The government is "of the people, by the people, for the people".   (Pleae note that I'm not claiming we always live up to our ideals here.  We do fall short of them.  I'm just saying what those ideals are.)

The philosophy in the UK seems to be a bit different.  The government doesn't work for you; you are subjects of the government.  I've had several British friends tell me this isn't a big deal and it's just semantic.   Maybe so.  I've spent a couple of weeks over there; that's not the same thing as living there and fully absorbing the culture.  But it does seem to me that Brits trust their government far more than Americans trust theirs.

This is not exactly right. Parts of the government work for us, however the Prime Minister is the Queens Minister, because the Queen is NOT allowed to enter the House of Commons. When the Queen opens parliment each year, she does so from the House of Lords (oposite end of parliment from St Stephens Tower(Big Ben)). A man called Black Rod goes to the commons to summon the MP's to the Lords, The door is slammed shut in front of him. He has to bang on the door with his mace for it to be opened, and the Prime Minister and others then follow him to the Lords..

However the British people are no longer subjects of the Queen we are now citizens of the country.(Actually countries). I don't think the British will trust their MP's as much now. Parliment needs reforming and with more scrutiny. Parliment was always considered Soveriegn and even the Police cannot enter without the Speakers permission. There used to be a person responsible for scrutinizing the MP's  but she was sacked because she did her job too well. The government tried to get itself exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. But the European Courts ruled against them.

Is that why these people were not under more scrutiny before this?  It took a Freedom of Information request to get this information?  That part just seems strange to me.   That government officials would behave this way does not.

Maybe I'm making too much of this.  Maybe it's just a major breakdown in the auditing system. 

The auditing system worked for the MP's.

At any rate, I hope you can get the scoundrels out of office and replace them with more honest people.

quote>

So do we!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

There is if you are self employed, own property for income, have additional income, or have stocks and shares, or a myraid of other reasons. The inland revenue send you the main document and whatever additional pages you need.

The only time you will not get one of these is if you only have one paid income working for a company. They are a nightmare to fill out, The chancellor and others paid for accountants to do it from public funds. We are NOT allowed to claim for accountants to fill ours in.  quote>

We have a "short form" for simple situations and a "long form" with lots of extra forms for the situations you describe.

Millions of us just use software designed for the purpose.  TurboTax, for instance, has a new release every year and stands behind its calculations.  I just answer its questions and let it figure out which forms I'm supposed to file.

However the British people are no longer subjects of the Queen we are now citizens of the country.(Actually countries). quote>

When did this happen?  I went to school with a guy who insisted he was a British subject.

I don't think the British will trust their MP's as much now. Parliment needs reforming and with more scrutiny. Parliment was always considered Soveriegn and even the Police cannot enter without the Speakers permission. quote>

I'll have to think about that one.

There used to be a person responsible for scrutinizing the MP's  but she was sacked because she did her job too well. The government tried to get itself exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. But the European Courts ruled against them.

quote>

Over here, the Freedom of Information Act, has about a half dozen exceptions that allow the government to refuse to release information.  (national security and such)

The auditing system worked for the MP's.quote>

That's a problem.   I hope the system gets changed so that they work for the taxpayers.

[Boggy1 45]

..hmm, I've not heard this thing about us being citizens. When did this come about? As long as we still have a Monarchy; we are still subjects. Not that that bothers me in the slightest, as it is only a technicallity.

[Gridlock 9]

To check every entry on every tax return would cost  to much and take lots of time ,if your return is completed by a qualified accountant , then the IR dont realy give the tax return a second glance, sure there s a chance ,you may get a tax investigation ,but its slim , the secret to fiddling is find a "good accountant" .

As for trusting the Monarchs MP s and Government , what you think im mad(dont answer that) , i dont trust them as far as i can throw them , i know what they are upto ,its not just MPs its most of them that have access to public money at all levels of government and public service .

I believe the British royal family now pay taxes , chances are she has a "good accountant" .

 I am a Commonwealth citizen formely known as a british subject since 1981 .

[Patricius Maximus 236]

..hmm, I've not heard this thing about us being citizens. When did this come about? As long as we still have a Monarchy; we are still subjects. Not that that bothers me in the slightest, as it is only a technicallity.quote>

Well, whatever you call it is the same thing. Citizen happens to sound better than Subject, so I imagine that is the reason.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

To check every entry on every tax return would cost  to much and take lots of time ,if your return is completed by a qualified accountant , then the IR dont realy give the tax return a second glance, sure there s a chance ,you may get a tax investigation ,but its slim , the secret to fiddling is find a "good accountant" .  quote>

But they do audit random samples, don't they?

   I am a Commonwealth citizen formely known as a british subject since 1981 .   quote>

What happened to cause the change?

[Gridlock 9]

Ski , Sure that would be a tax investigation they come random,however should you submit accounts with the Chartered accountants seal , then it is very unlikely they will choose you at random (contradiction but thats how it works) .

The change , i guess its all part of the gradual dismantling of an Imperial Empire , i remember the Monarch came under lots of pressure from British Commonwealth realms like Australia and Canada ,and also the British Government of the time ,the 70-80,s was a rough ride for the UK monarch , they did want to disband the Monarch altogether .

I think it was a compromise .

Some countries are still classed as subjects its complicated , these include countries like British India ,Republic of Ireland etc

Commonwealth realms, are:

Antigua and Barbuda,Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados,Belize,Canada, Grenada,Jamaica , New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,St Christopher and Nevis,St Lucia ,St Vincent and the Grenadines ,Solomon Islands ,Tuvalu

Im not sure of the status of every country in that list , it was a another terrible time in history the age of sail .The empire was built at a time if it wasnt British it would of been conquered by the French ,Spanish ,Dutch or Portuguese .We where far more humane than any of these other countries imho .

[Meg 368]

I was trying to sort out the citzen / subject thing and found this website:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/aboutcitizenship/

If I'm reading it right, there still are British subjects but not very many. 

Boggy, I don't see how you qualify as a subject given the requirements on that website.

(As a side note, I find it a bit odd that there is a form for "confirmation of the non-acquistion of British citizenship" but I've seen stranger bureaucratic forms.)

[Abes 0]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Why should they be paid to have a second home while some are struggling to even have a place to stay? I understand that most politicians have to live in their district then go to the capital to do national business, but there should be a better way. How about a complex for the officials, or maybe have them live in paid apartments when they come to the capital. It's just ridiculous what they try to cheat the people out of. If they get to claim all of that stuff, then why should we pay them? What's the point of their salary if they get to "claim" everything the spend?

quote>

Well said!

On top of a wage which I believe is about £60,000 they can claim:-

2nd home allowance £24,000

2 Offices allowance £100,000

Office consumables £24,000

30 tickets for their family to come to London to visit them (Whilst a) they go home each weekend, b) they have long holidays.

I'm thinking of two words:- Gravy Train.quote>

Thi is the UNITED KINGDOM, for goodness' sake! The whole COUNTRY is within a day's train ride or flying time from London, so why should the taxpayers be paying for them to travel??? As they are supposed to live in their constituencies, not London, just pack 'em off to London on an HST in Standard Class and be done with it....... Of course, thanks to "New Labour", British Rail doesn't exist anymore......

In my opinion, (and this goes for my homeland Australia too!) they should, as members of parliament either: a) drive themselves, or use public transport, just like the rest of us..... And they should pay for it out of their own pocket. And if they need accomodation in London, the Government ought to set up a MANDATORY dormitory for them somewhere. They are SUPPOSED to be the servants of the people, not the other way around!

[Abes 0]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Personally, none of that should be able to be claimed if the average person can not claim it. Why should they get any special exceptions?

quote>

Because they have to have somewhere to live in London. It's not practical to go 300 miles everyday.

The majority of MPs aren't rich.quote>

Of course it's practical to travel 300 miles a day. People manage in practically every other country. In Japan, you have people commuting DOUBLR that distance 6 days a week by Shinkansen (Bullet Train). And it's the UK, jthey can just take a train..... That's what HSTs, IC225s and the Pendolino are FOR.

[Deathtoall 28]

Merlin of Floyte, my Guy Fawkes reference was just a tongue in cheek joke. I meant about how the public money missues has generated resentment towards and how people wouild like to see the MPs removed. I was saying it would be satisfying like in V for Vendetta for some to watch the parliament blown up wether it be in the syle Guy Fawkes intended or Vendetta style, i did not mean to draw anything about religion in to it.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

If I'm reading it right, there still are British subjects but not very many. 

Boggy, I don't see how you qualify as a subject given the requirements on that website.

quote>

Boggy is not a British subject according to the Nationality Act, but he is a subject of the Queen.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

deathtoall, Thanks for the explanation.

gridlock, A slur on the reputation of Britains oldest ally

skigeek, The change from subject to citizen happened when we changed from British Style to European Style passports, about 20 or so years ago. I'm not sure of your age but I think you age is nearer to mine than to the youngsters on this site, in which case when you were at school it  was some time ago, which might make that correct.

The Nationality Act does not apply to ethnically British people, rather those that wish to aquire British nationality.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: krbe

Boggy is not a British subject according to the Nationality Act, but he is a subject of the Queen.quote>

     okay, I thought I had it but now I'm lost again.

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

skigeek, The change from subject to citizen happened when we changed from British Style to European Style passports, about 20 or so years ago. I'm not sure of your age but I think you age is nearer to mine than to the youngsters on this site, in which case when you were at school it  was some time ago, which might make that correct. quote>

Yes, I was an adult and had graduated from uni before 1981, which seems to be a key date in all of this.

The Nationality Act does not apply to ethnically British people, rather those that wish to aquire British nationality.quote>

okay . . . so there is ethnicity, nationality, citzenship, and subject-hood (subject-ness? subject-ity?  whatever).

and what you are saying is that those 4 characteristics can occur in all possible combinations?

At any rate, we are digressing.  This thread is supposed to be about the UK Parliment.

[Boggy1 45]

Sorry, should have made it clear that there is a difference to being a "British Subject" and a "Subject of the Queen". As I am born in Britain, I automatically become Her subject. Immigrants seeking British citizenship need to swear allegiance to the Queen; "I, NAME, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.". The Queen is Head of State, so we are subjects. The Crown owns the vast majority of the land in Britain, something like 70% of it. It's complicated...

[Meg 368]

Yes, it's complicated.   I give up.  Let's get back to Parliment.

(btw, in the USA, the oath is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", not whoever happens to be President at the time)

[toxicpiano 125]

So I did the count where I live. For our borough, Labour came 5th, after the greens! (roughly a thousand votes between).

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Labour as expected did badly in the English county council elections losing to the Conservatives in the shire (rural) counties and to the Liberals in some of the northern cities.

Gridlock

 The way the Royals pay Tax is different from the rest of us.

The Queen came to an agreement with the Inland Revenue as to how much she wanted to pay. (I bet the IR didn't put up much of a fight). She reduced the amount the government pays her.

Prince Charles agreed to pay his earnings from the Duchy of Cornwall to the Inland Revenue. All his other earnings are private and not taxed.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: Abes

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Personally, none of that should be able to be claimed if the average person can not claim it. Why should they get any special exceptions?

quote>

Because they have to have somewhere to live in London. It's not practical to go 300 miles everyday.

The majority of MPs aren't rich.quote>

Of course it's practical to travel 300 miles a day. People manage in practically every other country. In Japan, you have people commuting DOUBLR that distance 6 days a week by Shinkansen (Bullet Train). And it's the UK, jthey can just take a train..... That's what HSTs, IC225s and the Pendolino are FOR.

quote>

umm, you do realise that in Japan, trains are on time. this is the UK where trains go where they want and charge what they like £50 one way fares. (could you afford that every day). don't talk about travel distances, talk about travel TIMES. plus there are places away from the west coast of the UK

i think the evil Tories are behind this. Ever since Tony Blair has left office the media have had it in for Labour (Tony Blair was a tory before he was elected and this explains a LOT) and this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Public services always struggle and politicians are corrupt. (Tony Blairs nickname is teflon, Gordon Browns is Velcro, everything sticks to him)

it's not like the corruption is very major. In Italy you get a different government every 11 months. In China, officials do whatever they want (kill opposition). In France, corrupt mayors (on charges of corruption) become president and the trial of mayoral corruption is shelved until the ruling term is over and you can't hold the trial since the actual corruption is too far in the past to be held so he is innocent. ourcorruption is pitiful in comparison with the USA, they take bribes of several million dollars to block anti tobacco legislation etc. (it happened with the labour party taking money from tobacco to allow advertising in formula one events so the UK isn't perfect)

It's good that we are frying politicians at this level because if we don't then our standards will drop

i actually wonder if Gordon Brown will go insane since it seems he has been left out in the cold by everyone he could shout "et tu" to everyone. He is still a person believe it or not

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

i think the evil Tories are behind this.

 

You can't be serious.

Ever since Tony Blair has left office the media have had it in for Labour (Tony Blair was a tory before he was elected and this explains a LOT) and this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Public services always struggle and politicians are corrupt. (Tony Blairs nickname is teflon, Gordon Browns is Velcro, everything sticks to him).

Poor Gordon, not elected to be Labour leader, not elected to be prime minister. The man who "saved the world" LOL.He has borrowed more money than all governments for 300 years. You have to feel sorry for all these ex-members of the communists.

it's not like the corruption is very major. In Italy you get a different government every 11 months. In China, officials do whatever they want (kill opposition). In France, corrupt mayors (on charges of corruption) become president and the trial of mayoral corruption is shelved until the ruling term is over and you can't hold the trial since the actual corruption is too far in the past to be held so he is innocent. ourcorruption is pitiful in comparison with the USA, they take bribes of several million dollars to block anti tobacco legislation etc. (it happened with the labour party taking money from tobacco to allow advertising in formula one events so the UK isn't perfect)

Without tobacco advertising there would be no formula 1 in the UK.

It's good that we are frying politicians at this level because if we don't then our standards will drop

Agreed.

i actually wonder if Gordon Brown will go insane since it seems he has been left out in the cold by everyone he could shout "et tu" to everyone. He is still a person believe it or not

quote>

Just out of his depth but too proud to admit it.

[Abes 0]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

Originally posted by: Abes

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Personally, none of that should be able to be claimed if the average person can not claim it. Why should they get any special exceptions?

quote>

Because they have to have somewhere to live in London. It's not practical to go 300 miles everyday.

The majority of MPs aren't rich.quote>

Of course it's practical to travel 300 miles a day. People manage in practically every other country. In Japan, you have people commuting DOUBLR that distance 6 days a week by Shinkansen (Bullet Train). And it's the UK, jthey can just take a train..... That's what HSTs, IC225s and the Pendolino are FOR.

quote>

umm, you do realise that in Japan, trains are on time. this is the UK where trains go where they want and charge what they like £50 one way fares. (could you afford that every day). don't talk about travel distances, talk about travel TIMES. plus there are places away from the west coast of the UK

i think the evil Tories are behind this. Ever since Tony Blair has left office the media have had it in for Labour (Tony Blair was a tory before he was elected and this explains a LOT) and this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Public services always struggle and politicians are corrupt. (Tony Blairs nickname is teflon, Gordon Browns is Velcro, everything sticks to him)

it's not like the corruption is very major. In Italy you get a different government every 11 months. In China, officials do whatever they want (kill opposition). In France, corrupt mayors (on charges of corruption) become president and the trial of mayoral corruption is shelved until the ruling term is over and you can't hold the trial since the actual corruption is too far in the past to be held so he is innocent. ourcorruption is pitiful in comparison with the USA, they take bribes of several million dollars to block anti tobacco legislation etc. (it happened with the labour party taking money from tobacco to allow advertising in formula one events so the UK isn't perfect)

It's good that we are frying politicians at this level because if we don't then our standards will drop

i actually wonder if Gordon Brown will go insane since it seems he has been left out in the cold by everyone he could shout "et tu" to everyone. He is still a person believe it or not

quote>

The only reason trains are on time in Japan, and other countries is because that's what the PUBLIC demands. I still think 50 Pounds per trip is cheaper than the cost of letting the taxpayers pay for them to buy another house in London. And they earn more than I do........ Perhaps if your MPs were actually FORCED to commute into London like everyone else you'd actually see an increase in rail efficiency....... The reason trains sit in the middle of nowhere doing nothing is because Network Rail STILL doesn't know what it's doing, and your Train Operating Companies charge what they like because Labour privatised your rail system. But trains don't have the same traffic problems that roads do, so I don't see why your rail network is in even more of a mess than your road network......

And by the way, I believe the cause of corruption is usually the fact that the people don't take enough interest in what the corrupt are doing....

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Abes

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

Originally posted by: Abes

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Personally, none of that should be able to be claimed if the average person can not claim it. Why should they get any special exceptions?

quote>

Because they have to have somewhere to live in London. It's not practical to go 300 miles everyday.

The majority of MPs aren't rich.quote>

Of course it's practical to travel 300 miles a day. People manage in practically every other country. In Japan, you have people commuting DOUBLR that distance 6 days a week by Shinkansen (Bullet Train). And it's the UK, jthey can just take a train..... That's what HSTs, IC225s and the Pendolino are FOR.

quote>

umm, you do realise that in Japan, trains are on time. this is the UK where trains go where they want and charge what they like £50 one way fares. (could you afford that every day). don't talk about travel distances, talk about travel TIMES. plus there are places away from the west coast of the UK

i think the evil Tories are behind this. Ever since Tony Blair has left office the media have had it in for Labour (Tony Blair was a tory before he was elected and this explains a LOT) and this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Public services always struggle and politicians are corrupt. (Tony Blairs nickname is teflon, Gordon Browns is Velcro, everything sticks to him)

it's not like the corruption is very major. In Italy you get a different government every 11 months. In China, officials do whatever they want (kill opposition). In France, corrupt mayors (on charges of corruption) become president and the trial of mayoral corruption is shelved until the ruling term is over and you can't hold the trial since the actual corruption is too far in the past to be held so he is innocent. ourcorruption is pitiful in comparison with the USA, they take bribes of several million dollars to block anti tobacco legislation etc. (it happened with the labour party taking money from tobacco to allow advertising in formula one events so the UK isn't perfect)

It's good that we are frying politicians at this level because if we don't then our standards will drop

i actually wonder if Gordon Brown will go insane since it seems he has been left out in the cold by everyone he could shout "et tu" to everyone. He is still a person believe it or not

quote>

The only reason trains are on time in Japan, and other countries is because that's what the PUBLIC demands. I still think 50 Pounds per trip is cheaper than the cost of letting the taxpayers pay for them to buy another house in London. And they earn more than I do........ Perhaps if your MPs were actually FORCED to commute into London like everyone else you'd actually see an increase in rail efficiency....... The reason trains sit in the middle of nowhere doing nothing is because Network Rail STILL doesn't know what it's doing, and your Train Operating Companies charge what they like because Labour privatised your rail system. But trains don't have the same traffic problems that roads do, so I don't see why your rail network is in even more of a mess than your road network......

Oh yes they do! Capacity is a major problem in the cities. Many tracks are full at the times when extra services are needed. Bridges are generally too low for double deck trains. One of the problems is our Victorian network. We bombed the hell out of european railways in WW2 so they had to start again. The Luftwaffe never managed to do the same here. Having said that our roads aren't too bad but there are missing bits.

And by the way, I believe the cause of corruption is usually the fact that the people don't take enough interest in what the corrupt are doing....

quote>

Agreed, but sometimes it's the secrets that they keep.

[The Bluejay 40]

I think I must be the only one in the world who feels sorry for poor old Gordon... I mean, he becomes prime minister, and then everything scandal, crisis and problem this side of Neptune slams straight into him. Worldwide recession, swine flu, MP expenses scandal, NHS, ID cards (I heard somewhere that was a tory idea that labour nicked, not sure if its true) Royal Mail, Coal Power Plants, 42 day detention..... Talk about bad luck! It's not like anything would different under Cameron. Recession would go BUMPH in our faces a little earlier, swine flu would still infect everyone, MP expenses woulds still hit (actually, it would carry on happening but no one would notice because the Telegraph is a tory paper, which is why they always report on the labour and lib dem MPs) NHS and Royal Mail would be privatized right off the bat, though. The Tories are NOT GREEN, I don't care what they say and 42 day detention would be passed.

If the LibDems got in, no one would notice and if the BNP got in, we would all be brainwashed with semolina. Greens would be like the Tories but green and slightly more inept, UKIP will attach all he submarines we have to The UK and drag it over the atlantic ("We will leave Europe" indeed. In case they hadn't noticed, we are on the continent for ever) Yay for long posts