Richard Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not sure there's much difference snowy to be honest, especially when you add in the last line of chris's post which says predictable nil nil draw, which suggests that as degree of holding your own was taking place. So yes I'd say the post from chris would have been my take on it too and is pretty consistent with my earlier view that he didn't get the kicking people suggested he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Its definitely not Ahh but Labour (cant stand that phrase by the way, it suggests comparison is invalid). As you said its across all parties. and there are over 100 of people from both parties claiming more for their family members. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others why not mention Peter Bone or Tom Harris. Both claim far more. If its because , you think he might be on the fiddle, well you could put a few lines at the end of any comment about any politician. David Camaron, ya de ya de ya, and he's on the fiddle Ed Milliband ya de ya de ya and he's on the fiddle. Like I said before, If Harris and Bone are the Man utd and Chelsea of nepotism, IDS is fighting relegation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not sure there's much difference snowy to be honest, especially when you add in the last line of chris's post which says predictable nil nil draw, which suggests that as degree of holding your own was taking place. So yes I'd say the post from chris would have been my take on it too and is pretty consistent with my earlier view that he didn't get the kicking people suggested he did That you don't think there is much difference is testament to your dedication to the party cause, I suppose. I don't expect you to be anything other than supportive (in a sort of carefully worded way) of a fellow Tory (especially one who makes your politicians to admire list and whom you have met on a couple of occasions) but please do us the courtesy of not trying to pass yourself off as a disinterested and balanced observer of party politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 you may not like him, you may think he is useless. That's fine. But I don't think its fair to have a go about him on this, when as you say 136 other mp's do it, some employing more than 1 family member at least 6 pay about £25,000 more another 40 claim about £15,000 more. and IDS pays his wife about 60% of the median. Now I think there should be no relations employed by mp's at all. There should be a set wage for each job to eliminate these wide pay gaps for the same job title. But in terms of nepotism, if Tom Harris is manchester united IDS is probably norwich So by your application of the logic of relativity, doing wrong is ok and can be ignored as long as it's not as wrong in financial terms as someone else's doing wrong, I think that's what your saying, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others...Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 no not at all, doing wrong is doing wrong. But the debate was about IDS. And as most mp's are still claiming beyond what is morally right, why single out this man. Why not post about the others claiming far more. Or why not mention it when discussing other mp's. Like I said why not finish every comment about every politician with .. and his expense claims are dodgy.. If the expense claims are the issue why not tackle the top 50 or 100. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others... Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Its definitely not Ahh but Labour (cant stand that phrase by the way, it suggests comparison is invalid). As you said its across all parties. and there are over 100 of people from both parties claiming more for their family members. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others why not mention Peter Bone or Tom Harris. Both claim far more. If its because , you think he might be on the fiddle, well you could put a few lines at the end of any comment about any politician. David Camaron, ya de ya de ya, and he's on the fiddle Ed Milliband ya de ya de ya and he's on the fiddle. Like I said before, If Harris and Bone are the Man utd and Chelsea of nepotism, IDS is fighting relegation Let me explain how I see it, and why I find him so contemptible. As you say, in simple cash terms, others have made bigger claims than him, and he could no doubt claim more. Let's leave aside whether the reason he doesn't is caution, or lack of imagination, or wanting to stay within the shelter of the pack and not be a front runner; one thing which is clear is that he has no problem with the principle of claiming for something which you, I and the parliamentary commissioner for standards are all agreed is an abuse. So he gets no brownie points on that score, and no credit for others managing to abuse the system to a greater degree, any more than a shoplifter would get credit for there being other more effective shoplifters working the same shop. My loathing for him comes from a combination of things. Looming large is his "Easterhouse conversion", followed by a gradual erosion of everything he claimed he had learned there, to the point where the community campaigner who spent years praising him has now attacked him. He is leading the attacks on the poor, despite all his claims to have been speaking up for them. This is actually worse than the usual tory attacks on the poor from a position of ignorant, moneyed comfort; it is a betrayal, selling out the most vulnerable for his own creeping advancement. That he had achieved a position of some credibility with poverty campaigners, and put himself in a position where he could have fended off the worst tory attacks on the poorest, makes this betrayal the more offensive. I'm also offended by the utter hypocrisy of what he says. He lives the most comfortable life, (under)occupying a large and splendid house on daddy's estate (daddy in law, to be accurate), the beneficiary of all sorts of public subsidy as well, yet is enacting punitive measures against poor people which will force them from their homes because they have one bedroom "too many" in the home they have lived in for years. The army major who tells families whose son is serving in Afghanistan that they must now move because they are underoccupying; the man who lectures the parents whose child has died that their home is too big for them, and they must go; the prating catholic who serves the interests of the moneylenders. He is devoid of any moral compass, yet no doubt sees himself as a moral exemplar. Sickening. What makes it worse is that all this is put across with smug complacency, in the tone of the squire ordering the footman around. When challenged by the lower orders, as an officer and country squire shouldn't be, he can't handle it. So as in that radio clip, he resorts to a combination of whining, petulance, bluster, and aggression. Pitiful. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others...Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?and?Did you fail to read the post you replied to and quoted?He should tell the blighters to get out and find work, like his good lady wife does.She earns £18,000 a year, paid by public funds, for managing Ian's diary.It's an object lesson to the idle paupers who can't be bothered to get out and compete for work in the marketplace, and just shows that jobs are there if only you can be bothered to look for them.As far as I can see Peter wasn't making a point about expenses per se in that post but about Duncan Smith and his position on public policy, e.g. getting on the bus to Cardiff and jobs don't come to you (unless, of course, you're a relative of a politician). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) no not at all, doing wrong is doing wrong. But the debate was about IDS. And as most mp's are still claiming beyond what is morally right, why single out this man. Why not post about the others claiming far more. Or why not mention it when discussing other mp's. Like I said why not finish every comment about every politician with .. and his expense claims are dodgy.. If the expense claims are the issue why not tackle the top 50 or 100. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others... Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? and? He as head of department leads a concerted campaign to target unemployed and disabled people, to portray them as feckless scroungers (no doubt a percentage of them are but does that justify tarring everyone with the same brush) and systematically attack their ability to afford to live under the guise of protecting honest hardworking taxpayers from their scrounging ways, By using changes to the regulations and down right corrupt systems to administer those regulations, whilst happily exploiting a situation to sponge another 18,000 quid from those hard working taxpayers, of course the obvious difference is he believes he (or rather his wife) deserves it. surely if he's so in favour in helping those hard pressed taxpayers he should take the equivalent of jobseeekrs and other benefits he's be entitled to in remuneration for his work for the government. after all if he and his department are to believed, via the planted storied in the press you can live a life of luxury on JSA, why would you need more. Edited February 21, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others... Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? and? Did you fail to read the post you replied to and quoted? >He should tell the blighters to get out and find work, like his good lady wife does. She earns £18,000 a year, paid by public funds, for managing Ian's diary. It's an object lesson to the idle paupers who can't be bothered to get out and compete for work in the marketplace, and just shows that jobs are there if only you can be bothered to look for them. As far as I can see Peter wasn't making a point about expenses per se in that post but about Duncan Smith and his position on public policy, e.g. getting on the bus to Cardiff and jobs don't come to you (unless, of course, you're a relative of a politician). yup I read it. And I mentioned the fact that if he didn't like his policies that's fine. Did you read that bit. As far as I can see Peter was having a go about his policies, then pointed out his expenses were dubious. I agree. But I also think there are far worse. Just because of his position shouldn't single him out, should it? Do we only check the claims of people who deal with poor people. That doesn't seem logical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 no not at all, doing wrong is doing wrong. But the debate was about IDS. And as most mp's are still claiming beyond what is morally right, why single out this man. Why not post about the others claiming far more. Or why not mention it when discussing other mp's. Like I said why not finish every comment about every politician with .. and his expense claims are dodgy.. If the expense claims are the issue why not tackle the top 50 or 100. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others... Because he's the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? and? He as head of department leads a concerted campaign to target unemployed and disabled people, to portray them as feckless scroungers (no doubt a percentage of them are but does that justify tarring everyone with the same brush) and systematically attack their ability to afford to live under the guise of protecting honest hardworking taxpayers from their scrounging ways, By using changes to the regulations and down right corrupt systems to administer those regulations, whilst happily exploiting a situation to sponge another 18,000 quid from those hard working taxpayers, of course the obvious difference is he believes he (or rather his wife) deserves it. surely if he's so in favour in helping those hard pressed taxpayers he should take the equivalent of jobseeekrs and other benefits he's be entitled to in remuneration for his work for the government. after all if he and his department are to believed, via the planted storied in the press you can live a life of luxury on JSA, why would you need more. I agree, could do more maybe If you are in the cabinet and have no kids in the military, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on whether we send troops into action, after all it doesn't affect you. Or maybe if you live in Scotland you shouldn't be able to vote on English only issues. I'm liking this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not sure there's much difference snowy to be honest, especially when you add in the last line of chris's post which says predictable nil nil draw, which suggests that as degree of holding your own was taking place. So yes I'd say the post from chris would have been my take on it too and is pretty consistent with my earlier view that he didn't get the kicking people suggested he did That you don't think there is much difference is testament to your dedication to the party cause, I suppose. I don't expect you to be anything other than supportive (in a sort of carefully worded way) of a fellow Tory (especially one who makes your politicians to admire list and whom you have met on a couple of occasions) but please do us the courtesy of not trying to pass yourself off as a disinterested and balanced observer of party politics. I wasn't trying to pass myself off that way. But given the frenzy that was reacting to his comments I expected to hear a different radio interview than the one I did. Hence my comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Its definitely not Ahh but Labour (cant stand that phrase by the way, it suggests comparison is invalid). As you said its across all parties. and there are over 100 of people from both parties claiming more for their family members. Now I'm wondering why he deserves more scrutiny than others why not mention Peter Bone or Tom Harris. Both claim far more. If its because , you think he might be on the fiddle, well you could put a few lines at the end of any comment about any politician. David Camaron, ya de ya de ya, and he's on the fiddle Ed Milliband ya de ya de ya and he's on the fiddle. Like I said before, If Harris and Bone are the Man utd and Chelsea of nepotism, IDS is fighting relegation Sorry but your comparison is not valid again, and despite you not liking the phrase there is a real element of "ahh but Labour ....." in somehow justifying what is happening here. IDS - worth repeating a loathsome individual - is responsible for some of the most vindictive cuts to the most vulnerable in society. See his record on disabled etc and his complete lack of concern. The fact that as pointed out he is a minister and would receive numerous support staff he continues to "rob the system". The man, and his wife apparently, - and I would say those who accept it - have no shame whatsoever. I fail to see what you are saying re football as it has no relevance to the point and especially to IDS and his position. I am wondering if those other Tory supporters the Tax Payers Alliance (impartial my arse) would be so happy if another party had members carrying out things in a similar way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 why wouldn't someone employ a member of family , do you know how hard it is to get some random staff member to take 3 points on their driving license for you 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not sure there's much difference snowy to be honest, especially when you add in the last line of chris's post which says predictable nil nil draw, which suggests that as degree of holding your own was taking place. So yes I'd say the post from chris would have been my take on it too and is pretty consistent with my earlier view that he didn't get the kicking people suggested he did That you don't think there is much difference is testament to your dedication to the party cause, I suppose. I don't expect you to be anything other than supportive (in a sort of carefully worded way) of a fellow Tory (especially one who makes your politicians to admire list and whom you have met on a couple of occasions) but please do us the courtesy of not trying to pass yourself off as a disinterested and balanced observer of party politics. I wasn't trying to pass myself off that way. But given the frenzy that was reacting to his comments I expected to hear a different radio interview than the one I did. Hence my comment. Interesting that Richard has to give the courtesy of not passing himself off as balanced and yet the screeching left with their pages of "Odious" "prick" and other name calling that shows them up for what they are somehow inferred as being balanced in all this , otherwise why not aim the same accusation at these other posters ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Never met the guy, Only know him from what i have seen on TV. Can't really make a judgement if he is loathsome or not.I don't know which are the most vindictive cuts. Are you suggesting that other parties including the ones in senior positions and that the previous administration cabinet do or did not employ family members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I wasn't trying to pass myself off that way.In your original post you weren't, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) why wouldn't someone employ a member of family , do you know how hard it is to get some random staff member to take 3 points on their driving license for you No problem with MP's employing members of their own family, just doing so at no personal expense and for very questionable reasons and value to the taxpayer. Especially whilst spouting the need victimise the disabled under the guise of helping them in order to protect the tax payer from having tax revenue frittered away on the lazy and feckless so they can live a life of luxury on benefits (oh the hypocracy). oh and I wouldn't call Iam donkey smith a loathsome hypocrite because he's a Tory, It's because he is, just like I'd call Tony Bliar a lying manipulative morally corrupt opportunist because he is or gormless brown a clueless idiot, but I guess to get the best to be politicians you have to pay the going rate, then let them have all sorts of legal but morally wrong ways of squeezing lots more out of the public purse. Edited February 21, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Interesting that Richard has to give the courtesy of not passing himself off as balanced and yet the screeching left with their pages of "Odious" "prick" and other name calling that shows them up for what they are somehow inferred as being balanced in all this , otherwise why not aim the same accusation at these other posters ???No one has to be balanced, Tony.It does a disservice, however, to the potential discussions if people claim to be unbiased when they aren't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 yup I read it. And I mentioned the fact that if he didn't like his policies that's fine. Did you read that bit. As far as I can see Peter was having a go about his policies, then pointed out his expenses were dubious. I agree. But I also think there are far worse. Just because of his position shouldn't single him out, should it? Do we only check the claims of people who deal with poor people. That doesn't seem logicalThe problem with where you have taken this is that Peter wasn't pointing out the employment circumstances of Mrs Duncan Smith as something separate but as part of the criticism of the policies Duncan Smith is fronting (and his presentation of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts