LiveAndLetBuy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I rather like the Green Party's policy of 'smashing up' the banks into organisations small enough to fail. That way if the lend stupid money they go bust, and don't get a bailout. I suspect however if they ever got close enough to implement it they'd be sent on a collective walk in the woods by the banking mafia. I wonder if the phones are busy at common purpose attempting to rig who gets into the minority parties leadership ? They'd all end up being bought by large foreign banks, which would probably go bust as well, if it wasn't for bail-outs from their respective states. Mind you, that may not be such a bad situation for the UK, as long as you can keep any one bank's market share to less than say 10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethel Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Problem Reaction Solution? I watched that movie the other day. Brilliant it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 That's a whole lot of subjective balls. Cameron bought a house in his constiuency and claimed for mortgage interest. Some time later he paid off his mortgage on his London house. Ah but the point is, he used the maximum ACA when he didn't need to. I also think it is dubious using that way round. Surely it should be for the cost of London housing not country mansions The man should go. Perhaps Hague can step back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patfig Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ah but the point is, he used the maximum ACA when he didn't need to. I also think it is dubious using that way round. Surely it should be for the cost of London housing not country mansionsThe man should go. Perhaps Hague can step back in. Is Hague clean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 To be honest I have not looked at all the MP's expenses stuff and have been shocked by what I have read here. I thought we were talking about MP's claiming for property in London for when they have to be in parliament, not country estates ! What is more I thought we would be talking about MP's who could not afford 2nd homes . What surely is more relevant in this article rather than Cameron paying £75000 off his mortgage a few weeks after claiming £350000 off the tax payer towards his £650000 home in Oxford is that he made £935000 profit on the flat he paid off and bought another nearby. So why did he need help with his mortgage? Cameron believes he has done nothing wrong, can he really survive this? Trouble is if he goes are we going to get someone old school and really conservative? Was this leaked by someone wanted the old Tory party back? i suppose the one chink of light is that nearly all these MP's making profits through flipping have done what most numpty opportunistic investors do and reinvested the profit by taking out even more leverage through buying an even more expensive bubble property which means by the time this bubble deflation is over there profits will have completely dissappeared with many looking at a personal loss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ah but the point is, he used the maximum ACA when he didn't need to. I also think it is dubious using that way round. Surely it should be for the cost of London housing not country mansionsThe man should go. Perhaps Hague can step back in. How are you defining 'need'? No MP 'needs' to use ACA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 At least we know what the BNP stand for. Burglary, rape and violent attacks on people of colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Is it the case that David Cameron's alleged indiscretions re expenses have only been reported by the Mail on Sunday? I haven't picked it up on the news - either BBC or Sky, nor has Guido Fawkes run with it, so is it just a M on S non-story or what? Is Cameron being protected by the wider media for instance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Is it the case that David Cameron's alleged indiscretions re expenses have only been reported by the Mail on Sunday?I haven't picked it up on the news - either BBC or Sky, nor has Guido Fawkes run with it, so is it just a M on S non-story or what? Is Cameron being protected by the wider media for instance? Was just asked about it on the Politics Show. Apart from that fairly quiet compared to the other stories.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 ... so is it just a M on S non-story or what? Is Cameron being protected by the wider media for instance? Though the only paper that has run it is one that tends to support the Conservative Party. Maybe the wider media has made a decision that for two of the major parties to be thoroughly discredited and the third to be fundamentally unelectable on its current manifesto (i.e. the Lib Dems wanting to take us full-scale into a united states of Europe, which the vast majority of the population oppose) would create such a dangerous situation that, as you say, they've decided to protect Cameron, at least to a certain extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Burglary, rape and violent attacks on people of colour. Burglary (well theft), rape and violent attacks on people of colour seem to be popular amongst members of all political parties. Have a look at http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.com and maybe (although I doubt it), maybe you will change the record. Or maybe you have been so brainwashed by this government that you cannot admit, or accept, the fact that people from all political parties do horrible things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ok, this I think is worthy of an investigation. A shame as I actually reasonably liked David Cameron and certain would prefer to see him installed instead of Brown. Oh, ******ing brilliant. Are all of them culpable? My blood is boiling, he has to walk, simple as that. Can Daniel Hannan stand for his safe Oxfordshire seat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Though the only paper that has run it is one that tends to support the Conservative Party. Maybe the wider media has made a decision that for two of the major parties to be thoroughly discredited and the third to be fundamentally unelectable on its current manifesto (i.e. the Lib Dems wanting to take us full-scale into a united states of Europe, which the vast majority of the population oppose) would create such a dangerous situation that, as you say, they've decided to protect Cameron, at least to a certain extent. Interesting. Maybe there's a general consensus that what DC did wasn't as bad as out and out flipping and if he gets brought down, just about every MP could follow. It's a difficult one to judge, imo. I certainly think he took advantage of generous 2nd home allowances by rearranging his affairs to make sure this was possible. But it would appear that all MPs were encouraged to do this in lieu of foregone salary increases. Their efforts to surreptitiously award themselves salary increases through the backdoor of personal allowances has spectacularly backfired. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive. OR: One sin leads to another...... The initial deception is where it began; pretending that they were foregoing salary increases to curry public favour yet bolstering their salary through allowances on the sly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 At least we know what the BNP stand for. Criminal convictions for incitement of racial hatred, perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 SNIPVote for a lunatic fringe party, or for an independent. Hi Danny. You seemed to have missed a word out there: hope you don't mind me adding it in for you. BTW with the Jim Morrison quote, isn't it "No one here..."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherSTR Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ah but the point is, he used the maximum ACA when he didn't need to. I also think it is dubious using that way round. Surely it should be for the cost of London housing not country mansionsThe man should go. Perhaps Hague can step back in. The words "didn't need to" are at the centre of quite a few of the the expenses stories. The expenses system should be there to reimburse MPs for expenses related to their job. They shouldn't profit from it, but neither should they be expected to fund their work from their own pockets. After all you wouldn't subsidise your company, would you? I think it reasonable that MPs are reimbursed for travel to and from Westminster and a second home, providing they're not in commuting distance of Westminster. So we shouldn't expect MPs to fund their work just because they're rich. Hence "didn't need to" has nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Criminal convictions for incitement of racial hatred, perhaps? "In 1998, Griffin was convicted of inciting racial hatred for publishing material that denied the Holocaust.[6] He received a nine-month prison sentence, which was suspended for two years." Not exactly out in a pointy white hat and a burning torch though was he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 "In 1998, Griffin was convicted of inciting racial hatred for publishing material that denied the Holocaust.[6] He received a nine-month prison sentence, which was suspended for two years."Not exactly out in a pointy white hat and a burning torch though was he? Where, oh where to start. Off you go and vote for him, then. Seems a stand up chap. Fancy a beer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 The words "didn't need to" are at the centre of quite a few of the the expenses stories.So we shouldn't expect MPs to fund their work just because they're rich. Hence "didn't need to" has nothing to do with it. Not what was being said. The size of the house is what wasn't needed. A £200k house would not have required a £350k ACA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ah, allegations re Cameron's expenses claim briefly mentioned on Sky News but was quickly diverted to his latest idea that MPs should be recallable. Seems like it is being deliberately downplayed. I wonder why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Where, oh where to start.Off you go and vote for him, then. Seems a stand up chap. Fancy a beer? Nicely dealt with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Ah, allegations re Cameron's expenses claim briefly mentioned on Sky News but was quickly diverted to his latest idea that MPs should be recallable. Seems like it is being deliberately downplayed. I wonder why? Maybe because even those who usually support Labour have had enough ? Broon is gone. The sooner the better. I reckon most people agree with this. Cameron does not look much better, but he can't be any worse. Can he.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keef Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Cameron does not look much better, but he can't be any worse. Can he.... No. A mechanical monkey rubbing its own shit all over its balls could do a better job of Prime Minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Maybe we will end up with the BNP as the only clean party left !! Only because they are too stupid to know how to bend the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'm very disappointed by this. I met DC last year and he seemed like a very nice bloke. I'll admit I've always like the Tories and their policies and have always voted for them at every opportunity. This will of course now result in voicing my disgust by voting for UKIP on June 4th. Goodbye Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.