More stitch up from the coalition. Please note, today Nick Clegg (man in video) just agreed to increase university tuition fees to up to £9000.00 a year. Now watch the video he made pre-election. What a twat.
It seems a little harsh. He was claiming rent for a house he was renting from his boyfriend. However at the time he hadn't 'come out' so he says he was hiding the boyfriend from public view. If he stopped paying the rent through parliamentary expenses then it would be plain that the man was his 'spouse or partner'. On the other hand this went on for rather a long time...
he fraudulently claimed the money, frankly he should be prosecuted. you try lying on any claim for govt support and see how quickly they come down on you like a ton of bricks. One rule for some and another rule for us. That is not acceptable. However he was targeted by the telegraph due to his position on the increase in capital gains tax. p.s. how exeter, have you been down to the double locks?
Location: The dreaming spires Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 30, 2010 - 6:05am
hobiejoe wrote:
Morning Geordie! Feel better for getting that one off your chest?
It is a bit 'Dave Spart' isn't it.
hobiejoe
Oh Lord above, send down a dove; With wings as sharp as razors; To cut the throats of them mean blokes; That sells bad beer to sailors.
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 30, 2010 - 4:46am
geordiezimmerman wrote:
I don't think so. He claimed this money for 8 YEARS! £40,000 in total. And who does this money go to? Yes, the very man he was sleeping with. I don't think it matters if he was still in the closet, if he was the partner of this man then he shouldn't have been claiming expenses to give to this man as it clearly states you cannot claim for partners/relatives. I'm glad he's gone, hope there's more to come and hopefully this undemocratic stitch up coalition will fail dramatically and then hopefully we can get some real politics and not this pathetic sham we have at the moment.
Morning everyone
Morning Geordie! Feel better for getting that one off your chest?
It seems a little harsh. He was claiming rent for a house he was renting from his boyfriend. However at the time he hadn't 'come out' so he says he was hiding the boyfriend from public view. If he stopped paying the rent through parliamentary expenses then it would be plain that the man was his 'spouse or partner'. On the other hand this went on for rather a long time...
I don't think so. He claimed this money for 8 YEARS! £40,000 in total. And who does this money go to? Yes, the very man he was sleeping with. I don't think it matters if he was still in the closet, if he was the partner of this man then he shouldn't have been claiming expenses to give to this man as it clearly states you cannot claim for partners/relatives. I'm glad he's gone, hope there's more to come and hopefully this undemocratic stitch up coalition will fail dramatically and then hopefully we can get some real politics and not this pathetic sham we have at the moment.
Location: its wet, windy and chilly....take a guess Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 30, 2010 - 2:42am
MrsHobieJoe wrote:
now you're gloating
bit if he broke the expenses rules he has to go (I don't quite understand how the rules work as presumably he was allowed to claim something for living in London)
It seems a little harsh. He was claiming rent for a house he was renting from his boyfriend. However at the time he hadn't 'come out' so he says he was hiding the boyfriend from public view. If he stopped paying the rent through parliamentary expenses then it would be plain that the man was his 'spouse or partner'. On the other hand this went on for rather a long time...
bit if he broke the expenses rules he has to go (I don't quite understand how the rules work as presumably he was allowed to claim something for living in London)
bit if he broke the expenses rules he has to go (I don't quite understand how the rules work as presumably he was allowed to claim something for living in London)
hobiejoe
Oh Lord above, send down a dove; With wings as sharp as razors; To cut the throats of them mean blokes; That sells bad beer to sailors.
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Just listened to the News Quiz. Great commentary about Theresa May being the minister in charge of womens affairs and equality and diversity. She may be pretty much the only woman they had available but she isn't exactly a leading right in the equal rights movement.
You make a good point that the victors shouldn't be able to change the rules to perpetuate their hold on power. Keep in mind, though, that it has long been the law in the U.K that general elections must be held at least every five years. Also, I believe that Parliament can still be dissolved if 55% of its members support a dissolution. I think the reason for instituting the five-year term is to protect the Liberal Democrats from being railroaded out of the coalition if the Conservatives end up with the voting muscle to do that.
So far, I'm encouraged at the tone that Cameron is taking by saying that the LD will be treated as a partner in a true coalition, not as some kind of in-house opposition. By giving them slightly more cabinet posts than LD received as a percentage of votes, he seems to be putting his money where his mouth is. As an environmentalist, I'm pleased to see that the LD duputy leader, Chris Huhne, will be appointed secretary for energy and climate change. You can be sure that his views are greener than the typical Tory.
I had this debate with a Tory today. Although they only have 57 parliamentary seats to the Con 306, in vote terms they had 40% of the combined LD/Tory vote by the electorate.
I know you jest but there is a serious point here. There is much outrage here, as i said, from the lib dem voting public AND members of each party who are in power and to even talk about a fixed term when this is the first coalition (by parties who were and probably still are poles apart) is a good kick in the teeth to those feeling angry. People are still feeling very sensitive at the moment, some in shock at what has happend in the last few days.
Not only that, having a fixed term should not be the decision made by the parties in power, they are bound to want that, they are in power, it's good for them. It should be either a decision made by ALL parties or via referendum of the british public. That's the fairest way to do it otherwise where does it stop? Nect time Labour win they may suddenly say ' we are now bringing in a minimum 10 year fixed term' and so on. Let the public decide if they want an extended fixed term, not those that are in power at that particular time.
You make a good point that the victors shouldn't be able to change the rules to perpetuate their hold on power. Keep in mind, though, that it has long been the law in the U.K that general elections must be held at least every five years. Also, I believe that Parliament can still be dissolved if 55% of its members support a dissolution. I think the reason for instituting the five-year term is to protect the Liberal Democrats from being railroaded out of the coalition if the Conservatives end up with the voting muscle to do that.
So far, I'm encouraged at the tone that Cameron is taking by saying that the LD will be treated as a partner in a true coalition, not as some kind of in-house opposition. By giving them slightly more cabinet posts than LD received as a percentage of votes, he seems to be putting his money where his mouth is. As an environmentalist, I'm pleased to see that the LD duputy leader, Chris Huhne, will be appointed secretary for energy and climate change. You can be sure that his views are greener than the typical Tory.
If Deputy Prime Minister Clegg had only checked the LD Facebook page, I'm sure he never would have supported a fixed-term Parliament or a coalition with the Tories! Although the U.K. is not the U.S., fixed terms have worked out pretty well here for a couple of hundred years. You might find it works there too. If not, it can be repealed.
I know you jest but there is a serious point here. There is much outrage here, as i said, from the lib dem voting public AND members of each party who are in power and to even talk about a fixed term when this is the first coalition (by parties who were and probably still are poles apart) is a good kick in the teeth to those feeling angry. People are still feeling very sensitive at the moment, some in shock at what has happend in the last few days.
Not only that, having a fixed term should not be the decision made by the parties in power, they are bound to want that, they are in power, it's good for them. It should be either a decision made by ALL parties or via referendum of the british public. That's the fairest way to do it otherwise where does it stop? Nect time Labour win they may suddenly say ' we are now bringing in a minimum 10 year fixed term' and so on. Let the public decide if they want an extended fixed term, not those that are in power at that particular time.
I totally disagree. There should never be a fixed term. One, this coalition is not to everyone's agreement, in fact you could argue more are against it than for it. There are people in their own parties who are against it so to bring in a fixed term is taking liberties! You have to remember that none of these parties had a majority, Libs actually LOST seats in this election so again, to think they can just go ahead and bring in a fixed term is rather brazen of them. They somehow think it makes for stable government, how does it? The people of this country as well as the figures for the economy, the unemployment figures, NHS waiting lists and the like show if we have a government that's working or not, and if it's not then a vote for no confidence is raised and if needs be an election is called. At the end of the day, if this coalition doesn't work then the people of this country will soon be calling for a re-election and so to even have the audacity to say they will be there for a minimum of 5 years is remarkable. I hope it fails and i hope it fails massively because going from the comments on the lib dems facebook page and various news coverage (take ITV news out of this equation) i trust, those that voted Lib dems, be it for tactical reasons(to keep the tories out) or because they fell for Nick Clegg's bullshit, did not want a coalition with the tories. If Nick Clegg calls himself a liberal and a man who wants a proper democracy, then he should have listened to those that voted for him and not agreed to something those that voted for him didn't want.
Instead, he's been swayed by the fact he was offered the deputy prime minister role, he thought of himself before he thought of anyone else. He has shown his true colours. He lied.
If Deputy Prime Minister Clegg had only checked the LD Facebook page, I'm sure he never would have supported a fixed-term Parliament or a coalition with the Tories! Although the U.K. is not the U.S., fixed terms have worked out pretty well here for a couple of hundred years. You might find it works there too. If not, it can be repealed.
That is a positive development that I think will be good for the U.K. The stability of a fixed term will probably be an inducement for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to work together. Whether they can manage that for five years is questionable, but I hope they do.
I totally disagree. There should never be a fixed term. One, this coalition is not to everyone's agreement, in fact you could argue more are against it than for it. There are people in their own parties who are against it so to bring in a fixed term is taking liberties! You have to remember that none of these parties had a majority, Libs actually LOST seats in this election so again, to think they can just go ahead and bring in a fixed term is rather brazen of them. They somehow think it makes for stable government, how does it? The people of this country as well as the figures for the economy, the unemployment figures, NHS waiting lists and the like show if we have a government that's working or not, and if it's not then a vote for no confidence is raised and if needs be an election is called. At the end of the day, if this coalition doesn't work then the people of this country will soon be calling for a re-election and so to even have the audacity to say they will be there for a minimum of 5 years is remarkable. I hope it fails and i hope it fails massively because going from the comments on the lib dems facebook page and various news coverage (take ITV news out of this equation) i trust, those that voted Lib dems, be it for tactical reasons(to keep the tories out) or because they fell for Nick Clegg's bullshit, did not want a coalition with the tories. If Nick Clegg calls himself a liberal and a man who wants a proper democracy, then he should have listened to those that voted for him and not agreed to something those that voted for him didn't want.
Instead, he's been swayed by the fact he was offered the deputy prime minister role, he thought of himself before he thought of anyone else. He has shown his true colours. He lied.
They are planning to introduce fixed term parliaments of 5 years so could well be the case that the highlighted bit isn't possible.
That is a positive development that I think will be good for the U.K. The stability of a fixed term will probably be an inducement for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to work together. Whether they can manage that for five years is questionable, but I hope they do.
Morning Geordie! Feel better for getting that one off your chest?
Although the U.K. is not the U.S., fixed terms have worked out pretty well here for a couple of hundred years. You might find it works there too. If not, it can be repealed.
