MP calls for scrapping of watchdog (From Daily Echo)

I bet he does. Any coincidence that recently he was named as Hampshires highest expense claiming MP.

Expenses are just that, to cover legitimate business expenses. Not to subsidise lifestyle, house furnishings and a further source of income.
If I had my way, anything over 1-00 should be itemised and scrutinised and dubious claims kicked out. Happens with a normal persons expenses, why should they be different.

hulla baloo wrote:
I bet he does. Any coincidence that recently he was named as Hampshires highest expense claiming MP.

Expenses are just that, to cover legitimate business expenses. Not to subsidise lifestyle, house furnishings and a further source of income.
If I had my way, anything over 1-00 should be itemised and scrutinised and dubious claims kicked out. Happens with a normal persons expenses, why should they be different.

Having met Mr Brine I do genuinely feel he's one of the good guys, believe it or not he's not made of money, to tar all MP's as rich and living in mansions (for example) is pretty short sighted.

He did sterling work in getting Kings' Worthys electricity grid updated to cope with current demand, an issue that matters to me because my elderly grandmother lives there.

Obviously you didn't think this before posting your comment starting with the envious little snipe, has Mr Brine been investigated and convicted of fiddling expenses?

No.

Shoong wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
I bet he does. Any coincidence that recently he was named as Hampshires highest expense claiming MP.

Expenses are just that, to cover legitimate business expenses. Not to subsidise lifestyle, house furnishings and a further source of income.
If I had my way, anything over 1-00 should be itemised and scrutinised and dubious claims kicked out. Happens with a normal persons expenses, why should they be different.

Having met Mr Brine I do genuinely feel he's one of the good guys, believe it or not he's not made of money, to tar all MP's as rich and living in mansions (for example) is pretty short sighted.

He did sterling work in getting Kings' Worthys electricity grid updated to cope with current demand, an issue that matters to me because my elderly grandmother lives there.

Obviously you didn't think this before posting your comment starting with the envious little snipe, has Mr Brine been investigated and convicted of fiddling expenses?

No.

Is not an envious snipe. I merely suggested that all expenses, for all MP's, should be scrutinised to ensure they are legitimate. After all, is tax payers ( your money) that they are claiming. And never suggested he did fiddle,. BUT, only a few have been caught, which is probably the tip of the iceberg.

Shoong, having met Mr Mp, your opinion is biased.

Im sure he is not made of money, no one is.

But I am also sure he has more of it then 90% of hampshire.

There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

Subject48 wrote:
Shoong, having met Mr Mp, your opinion is biased.

Im sure he is not made of money, no one is.

But I am also sure he has more of it then 90% of hampshire.

You are sure? How?

How is meeting the bloke making me bias? I could have met him and thought he was a fool, it's just that he wasn't.

Maybe he earns the wage he does because he's made something of himself.

redsnapper wrote:
There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

So, any MP who was not found guilty of any expense fraud is just as guilty as those who where?

I suppose if you lived in Winchester (where his constituency is) and had to commute to London on a regular basis (because funnily enough, that's where the House of Commons has been for a few hundred years) you wouldn't claim the travel then?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Shoong wrote:

redsnapper wrote:
There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

So, any MP who was not found guilty of any expense fraud is just as guilty as those who where?

I suppose if you lived in Winchester (where his constituency is) and had to commute to London on a regular basis (because funnily enough, that's where the House of Commons has been for a few hundred years) you wouldn't claim the travel then?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Figures recently released show him as claiming 142,000 in expenses. That is 2730 every week for a year. That is much more than travel expenses.

hulla baloo wrote:

Shoong wrote:

redsnapper wrote:
There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

So, any MP who was not found guilty of any expense fraud is just as guilty as those who where?

I suppose if you lived in Winchester (where his constituency is) and had to commute to London on a regular basis (because funnily enough, that's where the House of Commons has been for a few hundred years) you wouldn't claim the travel then?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Figures recently released show him as claiming 142,000 in expenses. That is 2730 every week for a year. That is much more than travel expenses.

I'll admit it does seem a lot but...

... all MPs expenses were investigated.

Was he found guilty of expenses fraud?

Shoong wrote:

redsnapper wrote:
There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

So, any MP who was not found guilty of any expense fraud is just as guilty as those who where?

I suppose if you lived in Winchester (where his constituency is) and had to commute to London on a regular basis (because funnily enough, that's where the House of Commons has been for a few hundred years) you wouldn't claim the travel then?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Shoong what planet do you live on?
The Commons only sits about 140 days a year and on most days it is less than half full so even assuming 50 days attendance to this exclusive club where everything is free it would cost someone travelling from Winchester 50 x £108.00 * they only travel 1st class!!

That is £5,400.00 c.w the rather inflated figure above.

Shoong wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

Shoong wrote:

redsnapper wrote:
There is no rocket science in dealing with expenses. Its just that MP#s are like pigs around the trough, and claim for almost everything they can lay their grubby paws on.

Ordinary employees in public and private restrict themselves to travel and hotel expenses and items expensed in the course of their job.

Duck houses and outrageous housing subsidies and pure greed chocolate biscuits and a trouser press for Chris Huhne who is a millionaire.

Sorry no respect , they are all in it together and rip off the public purse regularly.

So, any MP who was not found guilty of any expense fraud is just as guilty as those who where?

I suppose if you lived in Winchester (where his constituency is) and had to commute to London on a regular basis (because funnily enough, that's where the House of Commons has been for a few hundred years) you wouldn't claim the travel then?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Figures recently released show him as claiming 142,000 in expenses. That is 2730 every week for a year. That is much more than travel expenses.

I'll admit it does seem a lot but...

... all MPs expenses were investigated.

Was he found guilty of expenses fraud?

Read my previous posts and you will see I never accused him of fraud. Would be interested as to how he arrived at that figure, and still stand by my original posting regrading expenses in general.

At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

"why do they need to claim any expenses"?

Because the costs of travel from Westminster to constituency are unequal.
The MP for Westminster North, for example, can walk to his constituency.
The MP for Orkney and Shetland, as another example, can’t. And it costs a huge amount each year to commute.

So, you think that’s fair do you?
All travel costs should come out of an equal salary?

As for “lower the MP's wages to half”, pay peanuts, get monkeys.

Er, on reflection, seems we actually have quite a few monkeys already.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I dont have a problem with the salary they receive, but do have a problem with having 2/3 other jobs as well. How can they be effective and concentrate fully on their MP role whilst juggling other jobs. An MP should only have that job.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I know guys in the construction industary that travel a lot more than MP's do, and can not claim expenses or lodging money because they are told that its all included in the wage, and do not even earn £27,000 a year.
Have you ever read our real Political site where the manifest policy is listed out, or do you keep hitting that Capitalist clone site.
part of the manifest is MP's will be able to Travel free on Public Transport, Work calls payed for, and if a MP can not travel to and back from London every day there will be a tower block build next or close to the House of Commons and also one for the House of Lords, The idea is to take away any need to make any expenses claims.
We live in a Capitalist world and that means Greed will control.

Re : 'IPSA is 'cumbersome''!

Call me innocent ......... but .....,

Is it possible that a 'real world' translation of this comment from someone in the Cloud Cuckoo Land that is Westmidden at its best would be ;-

'Not content with the 26% increase in expenses/allowances 'fiddle money' claimed this year,..... and the further increase announced (VERY quietly) just BEFORE the Budget which will push the increase ..... in these times of 'austerity', 'belt tightening' and 'all in it together', ......we (the politicians in the single largest concentration of shysters, con artists, fraudsters and thieves, THIS side of prison bars!) ....expect to be allowed to get our fingers back further into the till --- like the good old days in the LAST Fraudsters' Parliament!'

I humbly ask!

Or am I ..... in some 'Plebian manner where fraud by MPs is NOT criminal but 'aspirational! ....... completely mistaken?

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I know guys in the construction industary that travel a lot more than MP's do, and can not claim expenses or lodging money because they are told that its all included in the wage, and do not even earn £27,000 a year.
Have you ever read our real Political site where the manifest policy is listed out, or do you keep hitting that Capitalist clone site.
part of the manifest is MP's will be able to Travel free on Public Transport, Work calls payed for, and if a MP can not travel to and back from London every day there will be a tower block build next or close to the House of Commons and also one for the House of Lords, The idea is to take away any need to make any expenses claims.
We live in a Capitalist world and that means Greed will control.

As has been said many times before, we can all make a manifest and promise everything when we do not have a hope of being the elected party.
Travel free on public transport is a good idea. Please tell me a good route from Newcastle to London, on free public transport, and how long it will take.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I know guys in the construction industary that travel a lot more than MP's do, and can not claim expenses or lodging money because they are told that its all included in the wage, and do not even earn £27,000 a year.
Have you ever read our real Political site where the manifest policy is listed out, or do you keep hitting that Capitalist clone site.
part of the manifest is MP's will be able to Travel free on Public Transport, Work calls payed for, and if a MP can not travel to and back from London every day there will be a tower block build next or close to the House of Commons and also one for the House of Lords, The idea is to take away any need to make any expenses claims.
We live in a Capitalist world and that means Greed will control.

As has been said many times before, we can all make a manifest and promise everything when we do not have a hope of being the elected party.
Travel free on public transport is a good idea. Please tell me a good route from Newcastle to London, on free public transport, and how long it will take.

Train would be best, then by tube.
There use to be a MP that did travel from way up north who never claimed any expenses and half his wage he use to give to good causes.
It should apply to councillors to.

The problem when above normal paying wages to people who are ment to be serving the country in Government, You do not get MP and Councillors serving the people, you get the Greed factor kick in and they are only in it for there self interest how much can they make for them selfs.
Was on a Political Chat web site a few mths ago when we chatted about this problem (it was a mix crowd left and right), an idea came up, it went some thing like this.
if you got earnings coming in higher than the MP wage, you paid nothing for doing an MP job, but if your earning are lower than the MP wage then earning are made up to the level of an MP wage.
I though was a very good idea that way you get rid of the self serving interest of an MP only there for his own greed, and start getting Politicians that will work for the benefit of the people as a whole and not the selected few like whats going on now.
There as been some very good ideas that have come up on this Political chat site.

@ shoong its very simple realy i applied logic and basic maths skills, you should try it..

You are of course correct as always in your mind.

So is he working as an MP to better the lives of the plebs, or to better his own life?

Hes doing both!? Well im sure the conflict of interest will arise at some point.....which side will he and all the other monkeys choose.

Shooong you have dissapointed me today.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I know guys in the construction industary that travel a lot more than MP's do, and can not claim expenses or lodging money because they are told that its all included in the wage, and do not even earn £27,000 a year.
Have you ever read our real Political site where the manifest policy is listed out, or do you keep hitting that Capitalist clone site.
part of the manifest is MP's will be able to Travel free on Public Transport, Work calls payed for, and if a MP can not travel to and back from London every day there will be a tower block build next or close to the House of Commons and also one for the House of Lords, The idea is to take away any need to make any expenses claims.
We live in a Capitalist world and that means Greed will control.

As has been said many times before, we can all make a manifest and promise everything when we do not have a hope of being the elected party.
Travel free on public transport is a good idea. Please tell me a good route from Newcastle to London, on free public transport, and how long it will take.

Train would be best, then by tube.
There use to be a MP that did travel from way up north who never claimed any expenses and half his wage he use to give to good causes.
It should apply to councillors to.

The problem when above normal paying wages to people who are ment to be serving the country in Government, You do not get MP and Councillors serving the people, you get the Greed factor kick in and they are only in it for there self interest how much can they make for them selfs.
Was on a Political Chat web site a few mths ago when we chatted about this problem (it was a mix crowd left and right), an idea came up, it went some thing like this.
if you got earnings coming in higher than the MP wage, you paid nothing for doing an MP job, but if your earning are lower than the MP wage then earning are made up to the level of an MP wage.

I though was a very good idea that way you get rid of the self serving interest of an MP only there for his own greed, and start getting Politicians that will work for the benefit of the people as a whole and not the selected few like whats going on now.
There as been some very good ideas that have come up on this Political chat site.

Easier solution is to ban all MPs from having a second job.

hulla baloo
"As has been said many times before, we can all make a manifest and promise everything when we do not have a hope of being the elected party"
You can never tell really now what will happen in the political world after what happened in Greece and now the same process is happening in Spain and here in the UK.
like in Greece the real Socialist (CWI) was all ways below 4th and only taken a hand full of voters, but in the last few General Elections there been a turn round people looking at the smaller partys that stood very little hope are now taking massive votes, because the main partys have turned there backs on the people that count, and this real Socialist party have now moved into second place and looking like it will win the next General Election, and the right wing party is now to go to the people in an general election because they know that they will lose to this up and coming party that have the right ideas for its people, and that same process is happen in Spain now, Here in the UK we are a bit behind Spain. but support is now starting to grow, and Right Wing Labour knows this and could end up being a party of the pass.

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

It's almost as under handed in principle as avoiding tax on tobacco then posting that you despise tax avoidance, justifying it by saying it's only a 'drop in the ocean'.

Who would have the gall to do that..?!

Yes, the majority of people do earn less than £24,000, but then the majority of people are not MPs (strange one that).

If elected, you wouldn't claim expenses then would you?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Does Bob Crowe or Len Mcluskey? No, I bet they don't do it either out of an act of good concious.

But I wonder what a quick Google search will tell me? Something different perhaps.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

Southy, they need expenses. How else can they travel to London, pay work phone bills, etc etc.
What must not happen is the volume and value of dubious 'expenses' that are being claimed.

I know guys in the construction industary that travel a lot more than MP's do, and can not claim expenses or lodging money because they are told that its all included in the wage, and do not even earn £27,000 a year.
Have you ever read our real Political site where the manifest policy is listed out, or do you keep hitting that Capitalist clone site.
part of the manifest is MP's will be able to Travel free on Public Transport, Work calls payed for, and if a MP can not travel to and back from London every day there will be a tower block build next or close to the House of Commons and also one for the House of Lords, The idea is to take away any need to make any expenses claims.
We live in a Capitalist world and that means Greed will control.

As has been said many times before, we can all make a manifest and promise everything when we do not have a hope of being the elected party.
Travel free on public transport is a good idea. Please tell me a good route from Newcastle to London, on free public transport, and how long it will take.

Train would be best, then by tube.
There use to be a MP that did travel from way up north who never claimed any expenses and half his wage he use to give to good causes.
It should apply to councillors to.

The problem when above normal paying wages to people who are ment to be serving the country in Government, You do not get MP and Councillors serving the people, you get the Greed factor kick in and they are only in it for there self interest how much can they make for them selfs.
Was on a Political Chat web site a few mths ago when we chatted about this problem (it was a mix crowd left and right), an idea came up, it went some thing like this.
if you got earnings coming in higher than the MP wage, you paid nothing for doing an MP job, but if your earning are lower than the MP wage then earning are made up to the level of an MP wage.

I though was a very good idea that way you get rid of the self serving interest of an MP only there for his own greed, and start getting Politicians that will work for the benefit of the people as a whole and not the selected few like whats going on now.
There as been some very good ideas that have come up on this Political chat site.

Easier solution is to ban all MPs from having a second job.

Can't really do that, because your end up with what we got to day Professional MPs, only in it for what they can get out of it, from education and into government never knowing what its like to work or be unemployed for very long spells at a time.

Why not? They are already in it for what they can get out of it. They will just need to focus on the one job, and hopefully be more of a success.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

It's almost as under handed in principle as avoiding tax on tobacco then posting that you despise tax avoidance, justifying it by saying it's only a 'drop in the ocean'.

Who would have the gall to do that..?!

Yes, the majority of people do earn less than £24,000, but then the majority of people are not MPs (strange one that).

If elected, you wouldn't claim expenses then would you?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Does Bob Crowe or Len Mcluskey? No, I bet they don't do it either out of an act of good concious.

But I wonder what a quick Google search will tell me? Something different perhaps.

Don't Google unless you want false information, go to Union House and read the paper work on it all, there is to much false propaganda from the right wing element, Also what go's on in a Union is up to the Union members to decide its not up to the likes of you or me to decide, so long they pay the right amount of Taxes like I know that they do.
Tax Advoidence is wrong at any level, but we should go after the ones that advoid the most first and work down there is more to gain that way and quicker.

hulla baloo wrote:
Why not? They are already in it for what they can get out of it. They will just need to focus on the one job, and hopefully be more of a success.

Would not happen, Proffessional Politicians do not have a clue what it like to be the ordinary person on the street they do not get the taste of it, and there should be at lest a 10 year gap on leaving full time education and being up for selection to be an MP or councillor.

Agreed. But is a career choice, like any other job. If I said to my boss, '' I will still work for you, on my full salary and expenses, but I will also have 2 other jobs'' I know what his response would be. Why should MP's be different? Especially as they are paid for by you and me. They should be committed to the job and whiter than white

In the pass before Thatcher change things, a Councillor use to do that job for nothing.
That idea of how to pay an MP from that Political web site, is a good one I think, it would relate to what your other jobs are paying, and if you had that policy in place 40 years ago, We would not have see the likes of Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Clegg and the Millibans, because they could not make any gains from becoming an MP.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

It's almost as under handed in principle as avoiding tax on tobacco then posting that you despise tax avoidance, justifying it by saying it's only a 'drop in the ocean'.

Who would have the gall to do that..?!

Yes, the majority of people do earn less than £24,000, but then the majority of people are not MPs (strange one that).

If elected, you wouldn't claim expenses then would you?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Does Bob Crowe or Len Mcluskey? No, I bet they don't do it either out of an act of good concious.

But I wonder what a quick Google search will tell me? Something different perhaps.

Don't Google unless you want false information, go to Union House and read the paper work on it all, there is to much false propaganda from the right wing element, Also what go's on in a Union is up to the Union members to decide its not up to the likes of you or me to decide, so long they pay the right amount of Taxes like I know that they do.
Tax Advoidence is wrong at any level, but we should go after the ones that advoid the most first and work down there is more to gain that way and quicker.

Going by your 'logic', that could mean the Daily Echo has got it wrong.

The figures published were not disputed in anyway by good old Bob or Red Len. Or Bob's dog 'Stalin' for that matter.

They are true. But of course, as previous experience tells us, if you don't like the truth then somehow it has been 'hacked' or is 'influenced by right wing propaganda'.

As I said, the figures were not disputed.

So, sorry, the 'internet is wrong because I don't like the facts that show me to support hypocrites' won't work this time.

They are facts.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

It's almost as under handed in principle as avoiding tax on tobacco then posting that you despise tax avoidance, justifying it by saying it's only a 'drop in the ocean'.

Who would have the gall to do that..?!

Yes, the majority of people do earn less than £24,000, but then the majority of people are not MPs (strange one that).

If elected, you wouldn't claim expenses then would you?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Does Bob Crowe or Len Mcluskey? No, I bet they don't do it either out of an act of good concious.

But I wonder what a quick Google search will tell me? Something different perhaps.

Don't Google unless you want false information, go to Union House and read the paper work on it all, there is to much false propaganda from the right wing element, Also what go's on in a Union is up to the Union members to decide its not up to the likes of you or me to decide, so long they pay the right amount of Taxes like I know that they do.
Tax Advoidence is wrong at any level, but we should go after the ones that advoid the most first and work down there is more to gain that way and quicker.

Going by your 'logic', that could mean the Daily Echo has got it wrong.

The figures published were not disputed in anyway by good old Bob or Red Len. Or Bob's dog 'Stalin' for that matter.

They are true. But of course, as previous experience tells us, if you don't like the truth then somehow it has been 'hacked' or is 'influenced by right wing propaganda'.

As I said, the figures were not disputed.

So, sorry, the 'internet is wrong because I don't like the facts that show me to support hypocrites' won't work this time.

They are facts.

When did the Echo publish Union leaders earning, The only time I can remember Ubion Leaders wages coming up is by people like your self posting, and I seen a number of quotes about there wages and not one as been the same as some elses posting.
Even the Tax alliance do not quote what they earn in wage and expenses, it do not concern them untill they avoid paying taxes and then they will pick up on them.
And again what the Union members decide on with there Union Leaders wages will be is up to them. And if you don't like what they are earning then join a union to have your say about the matter.
Remember Union Leaders are not paid by the Tax payer, they are paid by its members.
And you will only find the true figures on wages, expenses and all outs and in comings at Union House and open for all the public to see.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
At a wage that MP's get (lowest paid MP gets £62,000 per year) why do they need to claim any expenses, when you look at what the majority of people earn in a year is less than £24,000 a year and they do not get any expenses.
Time it was change and remove this Thatcher Policy of expenses clain sheet, and lower the MP's wages to half of what they get now.

It's almost as under handed in principle as avoiding tax on tobacco then posting that you despise tax avoidance, justifying it by saying it's only a 'drop in the ocean'.

Who would have the gall to do that..?!

Yes, the majority of people do earn less than £24,000, but then the majority of people are not MPs (strange one that).

If elected, you wouldn't claim expenses then would you?

No, of course you wouldn't.

Does Bob Crowe or Len Mcluskey? No, I bet they don't do it either out of an act of good concious.

But I wonder what a quick Google search will tell me? Something different perhaps.

Don't Google unless you want false information, go to Union House and read the paper work on it all, there is to much false propaganda from the right wing element, Also what go's on in a Union is up to the Union members to decide its not up to the likes of you or me to decide, so long they pay the right amount of Taxes like I know that they do.
Tax Advoidence is wrong at any level, but we should go after the ones that advoid the most first and work down there is more to gain that way and quicker.

Going by your 'logic', that could mean the Daily Echo has got it wrong.

The figures published were not disputed in anyway by good old Bob or Red Len. Or Bob's dog 'Stalin' for that matter.

They are true. But of course, as previous experience tells us, if you don't like the truth then somehow it has been 'hacked' or is 'influenced by right wing propaganda'.

As I said, the figures were not disputed.

So, sorry, the 'internet is wrong because I don't like the facts that show me to support hypocrites' won't work this time.

They are facts.

When did the Echo publish Union leaders earning, The only time I can remember Ubion Leaders wages coming up is by people like your self posting, and I seen a number of quotes about there wages and not one as been the same as some elses posting.
Even the Tax alliance do not quote what they earn in wage and expenses, it do not concern them untill they avoid paying taxes and then they will pick up on them.
And again what the Union members decide on with there Union Leaders wages will be is up to them. And if you don't like what they are earning then join a union to have your say about the matter.
Remember Union Leaders are not paid by the Tax payer, they are paid by its members.
And you will only find the true figures on wages, expenses and all outs and in comings at Union House and open for all the public to see.

I didn't sat the Echo published the Union masters salaries or expenses.

The TPA doesn't publish Union masters salaries or 'benefits'? Gosh, some one must have hacked my 'pooter then because I could have sworn I saw it here a little while back:

http://www.taxpayers
alliance.com/turichl
ist2011update.pdf

Ah, Union House. So I have to go all the way to Union House to find out. That's very transparent then, but then who want to hang their dirty laundry in public?

Union officers to be on a salary in line with average members salaries. This way the lifestyles and interests of the
leaders of the union and rank and file workers are the same.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

Shoong TPA did not publish it they answered some one question that was ask, and as the TPA keeps an open book means that every one could see the answer.
And yes Union House is very transparent, its just a case of you putting your self out to go and get the true information and not pass me down information.
And if you got any complains about a Union Leader Pay Packet then JOIN a Union to have your say in the matter, as it stands you are on the out side looking in, No body complains about the Tory Party Broad members and there very high wages now do they, and theres a reason for that, if want a say on the matter you join the Tory Party to have a say.
Now stop Your distraction and Trying to discreated other things,
This artical is about the amount of Tax Payers Money and where it go's to.

southy wrote:
Shoong TPA did not publish it they answered some one question that was ask, and as the TPA keeps an open book means that every one could see the answer.
And yes Union House is very transparent, its just a case of you putting your self out to go and get the true information and not pass me down information.
And if you got any complains about a Union Leader Pay Packet then JOIN a Union to have your say in the matter, as it stands you are on the out side looking in, No body complains about the Tory Party Broad members and there very high wages now do they, and theres a reason for that, if want a say on the matter you join the Tory Party to have a say.
Now stop Your distraction and Trying to discreated other things,
This artical is about the amount of Tax Payers Money and where it go's to.

Nope, no distractions, it's all there for people to see. It is true information - if you do have the 'true' information, feel free to post it here. You seem to know after all.

I don't feel the need to join a Union - I'm not having money from my wages siphoned so Union leaders can earn high wages and large 'benefits'. In effect it is a tax.

Yep, it is about Tax Payers money. But hypocrisy is, I believe, there to be exposed. You just don't like the facts.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Shoong TPA did not publish it they answered some one question that was ask, and as the TPA keeps an open book means that every one could see the answer.
And yes Union House is very transparent, its just a case of you putting your self out to go and get the true information and not pass me down information.
And if you got any complains about a Union Leader Pay Packet then JOIN a Union to have your say in the matter, as it stands you are on the out side looking in, No body complains about the Tory Party Broad members and there very high wages now do they, and theres a reason for that, if want a say on the matter you join the Tory Party to have a say.
Now stop Your distraction and Trying to discreated other things,
This artical is about the amount of Tax Payers Money and where it go's to.

Nope, no distractions, it's all there for people to see. It is true information - if you do have the 'true' information, feel free to post it here. You seem to know after all.

I don't feel the need to join a Union - I'm not having money from my wages siphoned so Union leaders can earn high wages and large 'benefits'. In effect it is a tax.

Yep, it is about Tax Payers money. But hypocrisy is, I believe, there to be exposed. You just don't like the facts.

Tax payers do not pay Union Leaders there wages, its Union Memebers that pay Union Leaders Wages so it as nothing to do with Tax payers unless they are advoiding paying the right amount of Tax and accounting to the TPA the Unions and Union Leaders are paying the full amount of UK Taxes.

So there for you are trying to distract people away from what this artical is all about. and you are also trying to discreated Unions.
You what a say in Unions Dealings then join a Union and vote on the matters.