snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Aaaaaargh! Multi-quoting overload!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint 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 logical The 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). I understand all of that, and this originated from my original response was one line about she should leave him and move to Tom Harris where she would earn nearly 3 times as much. Others have then jumped in and argued the point of how he shouldn't employ family members whilst making decisions about the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 No offence taken, right what's next on the controversial scale. Who do you think would win in a wrestling match. Jesus or Buddha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I understand all of that, and this originated from my original response was one line about she should leave him and move to Tom Harris where she would earn nearly 3 times as much. Others have then jumped in and argued the point of how he shouldn't employ family members whilst making decisions about the poor. Not only making decisions about them, but belittling them and giving the impression that work is available, when his own household circumstances are a parody of privilege and patronage. If you can hand your missus £18k of public money as an act of patronage, like some feudal lord handing out sinecures, it puts you in a rather difficult position to be lecturing people on finding work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Peter, without wanting to drag this on too much, the only point I was making was the expenses side of things. To me It seems no different to MP's voting on war if they have no family on the front line. PS i think it would be close, but I reckon Buddha would edge it Edited February 21, 2013 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 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 ??? “Screeching left” and “shows them up for what they are” WTF are you on about? I made the odious prick comment so what am I exactly? The Tory Party are full of odious pricks. The evidence to back that up is shown in their actions over the last 2 years and 9 months. Me holding that opinion therefore makes me what exactly? Part of the screeching left? I suggest you don’t judge people you know little about my friend as if that is your accusation you’re way off target. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Others have then jumped in and argued the point of how he shouldn't employ family members whilst making decisions about the poor. I think it's more that he tells people that jobs won't come to them but fails to add 'unless you're a politician's wife'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 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 ??? “Screeching left” and “shows them up for what they are” WTF are you on about? I made the odious prick comment so what am I exactly? The Tory Party are full of odious pricks. The evidence to back that up is shown in their actions over the last 2 years and 9 months. Me holding that opinion therefore makes me what exactly? Part of the screeching left? I suggest you don’t judge people you know little about my friend as if that is your accusation you’re way off target. unless you personally know these members of the Tory party ,then your post shows you to be a Hypocrite if nothing else :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Ridiculous comment Tony and nothing more than a deflection from the point that was being raised about the Tory party and IDS in particular. You are the one that is making this personal now so lets nip that in the bud eh? As for the MP's (and I suspect people at other levels within politics) claiming monies for families there are some real belters here link The very charming (and Tory :-) ) MP Laurence robertson who seems to "want to keep it in the family" employing not only his ex-wife but also his new "bit of totty" MPs are still paying nearly £3m of public money to family members despite attempts by the new expenses watchdog to tighten up the system, research for The Independent has found. Analysis of MPs' staffing claims by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for the last financial year reveals that nearly one in five MPs still employs members of their family, at a cost to the taxpayer, despite condemnation of the practice during the expenses scandal. More than 40 family members of MPs were paid £30,000 or more, and six received between £40,000 and £44,999. Twenty-seven of the MPs who employed those close to them were newly elected in 2010. One MP employed both his estranged wife and his new partner at a combined cost of at least £55,000. Overall, 136 MPs are employing "connected parties" in roles including office manager, secretary, and parliamentary assistant, according to figures collected by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) for the financial year 2010-2011. Last night Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, called for Ipsa to look again at allowing the practice amid fears that it could be abused. "In our report, the committee recommended that MPs should no longer be able to employ family members at taxpayers' expense," he said. "Although we heard plenty of evidence during our inquiry that spouses and family members offered value for money, the purpose of our recommendation was to put the new system beyond any suspicion of abuse. We continue to be concerned about the potential for abuse – perceived or otherwise – which this creates and we hope that Ipsa will keep this under review." Among those MPs who paid the highest amount to family members of between £40,000 and £45,000 were: *Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, who, in the financial year to April 2011, employed his wife Jeanette as office manager. * Sir Alan Haselhurst, Conservative MP for Saffron Walden, who employed his wife Lady Angela Haselhurst as office manager. * Graham Brady, Conservative MP for Altrincham, who employed his wife Victoria Lowther as senior parliamentary assistant. * Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch, who employed his wife Christine as secretary. * Stephen Hammond, Conservative MP for Wimbledon, who employed his wife Sally as his senior parliamentary assistant. * Tom Harris, Labour MP for Glasgow South, who employed his wife Carolyn as office manager. Employing relatives is one of the most controversial practices still allowed under the changed expenses rules. In 2009, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a ban on the practice as it was "not consistent with modern employment practice designed to ensure fairness in recruitment, management of staff and remuneration". The then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, accepted the report's conclusions, but the head of Ipsa, Sir Ian Kennedy, disagreed and said only one family member per MP could be employed. MPs who had previously employed more than one family member were allowed to continue doing so. Records show that these included Sir Peter Soulsby, who has since stepped down as an MP. He employed his wife and two daughters, and Laurence Robertson, Conservative MP for Tewkesbury, employed both his estranged wife and his new partner at a combined cost of at least £55,000. He declined to comment on this situation. Graham Brady said: "All my staff are employed on the appropriate pay scales reflecting their experience, qualifications and responsibilities." Sally Hammond, who earns between £40,000 and £44,999 as senior parliamentary assistant to her husband, defended her arrangement. She said: "I have 25 years of experience of working for MPs, and our arrangements conform to all Ipsa requirements." http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/ In numbers 136 MPs employ a total of 140 family members 219 MPs were doing the same thing in 2009 £2.8m-£3.5m Estimated cost down from £5.8m in 2009 27 Number of new MPs employing family members £20-£25k Median salary of the 140 employees 42 Were paid over £30,000 a year, six over £40,000 (see above) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Drat I think the easy way to stop it, and claim tons of votes is for one party to announce that within 1 year of the next election it will be banned, so they all have 2 or 3 years to get used to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) unless you personally know these members of the Tory party ,then your post shows you to be a Hypocrite if nothing else :-) Nice post on poster again pal. I don't need to know them personally I can judge them on their actions and their actions over the last 2 years and 9 months lead me to the conclusion they are a bunch of odious pricks. The evidence is there for all but the blind, or those select few who have benefitted from their time in governement, to see. Edited February 21, 2013 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 You are the one that is making this personal now so lets nip that in the bud eh? if he had a crumb of any social conscience - and I appreciate that this is not something your typical Tory comes with - Every day the public see a bit more of what an incompetent, intolerant, vindictive party the Tory lot (and their supporters) are. a quick glance revels this forum is littered with such insults , perhaps indeed one ought to nip it in the bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) unless you personally know these members of the Tory party ,then your post shows you to be a Hypocrite if nothing else :-) Nice post on poster again pal. I don't need to know them personally I can judge them on their actions and their actions over the last 2 years and 9 months lead me to the conclusion they are a bunch of odious pricks. The evidence is there for all but the blind, or those select few who have benefited from their time in governement, to see. it's not post on poster when answering directly to a point raised you took umbrage at my first post , that was aimed at "generic lefty screeching" in response to the numerous attacks on anyone that doesn't subscribe to the views of left foot forward ..that you identified yourself as a member of said group is down to you i guess .. it's just very noticeable that nearly every post in this thread from the left leaning members of this forum has to be littered with pointless insults .. make your case and we can agree ,disagree and even heaven forbid ..discuss it ... Edited February 21, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard 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. and in the others I was responding to your points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 and in the others I was responding to your points!There were two posts you made in between your initial one containing comments which criticized the rude and aggressive interviewer whilst saying that Duncan Smith held his own in the face of provocation: one in which you tried to align this previous opinion with one that wrote off both interviewer and politician as two people who didn't want to engage and another where you responded to my criticism by trying to reaffirm this alignment.We've had the discussion over this via PM, Richard - I'm not sure why you wish to revisit it in the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Because I am just responding to a post you made in here that I didn't see before we had our m exchange! And a that point I think I'll stop thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 you took umbrage at my first post , that was aimed at "generic lefty screeching" in response to the numerous attacks on anyone that doesn't subscribe to the views of left foot forward ..that you identified yourself as a member of said group is down to you i guess .. it's just very noticeable that nearly every post in this thread from the left leaning members of this forum has to be littered with pointless insults .. make your case and we can agree ,disagree and even heaven forbid ..discuss it ... There is unfortunately little chance of discussing any thing with you when your response to most points raised is ahh but labour. It is something that is drummed into most children that two wrongs don't make a right but the penny doesn't seemed to have dropped in some cases. Back on topic.This current mob is making **** up after **** up and it is the most vulnerable and those most in need that are paying the biggest price. I don't really give a **** which way anyone swings politically but morally much of what is going on shouldn't sit right with anyone. It is just wrong. I consider myself comfortably off and the cuts that have been undertaken haven't effected me but that doesn't mean I'll just turn a blind eye, say I'm alright Jack and ignore what is happening to those less fortunate. What the Tories weakly backed by the lib dems are doing is nothing short of a disgrace and to say those that carry out those actions are odious pricks is an understatement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) The last two pages here pretty much summarise why I have given up posting in this thread. Debate here is impossible with a great many posters using simple insults, "odious prick" being a favourite of several, with any sensible, well argued responses dismissed with "aah but...... Labour" In a two party system it is impossible not to comapte the two parties to one another - for one side to say that such a comparison simply isn't vaild cheapens the whole arguement and in fact the whole point of the thread. The saddest thing for me is that a great many of you are capable of well reasonsed sensible conversation, and whilst I may not share your policital views and allegences, I can at least respect a well constructed thoughtful arguement. For shame. [/holier than thou] Edited February 21, 2013 by Eames 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Because I am just responding to a post you made in here that I didn't see before we had our m exchange! FFS, you really want to push this don't you? Edit: I had edited this in case the comment was misconstrued. Peter's rather put a spanner in those works. Edited February 21, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Because I am just responding to a post you made in here that I didn't see before we had our m exchange! FFS, you really want to push this don't you? If you don't want people to discuss your inside leg measurements then perhaps you ought to think twice about suggesting you're a leggy brunette. Ooooh, is he a leggy brunette? Mmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts