Wish I could steal £16k, get away with it and call it a mistake.

[l444ry]

As always with political arguments I tend to broadly agree with JTH. I would take issue with him on the assumption that Tories are generally wealthier. There are several wealthy Labour MPs, ex public school boys/girls and there lots of working class made good Conservative MPs.

The majority of MPs from all parties I suspect are middle class.

Not sure if that's strictly true Webbo. Where power is concerned at least, Cameron has clearly laid his cards on the table.

Altogether, 14 of Cameron's front bench spokesmen are old Etonians. Another three work in his private office. Many of the 14 are from a previous generation.

So much of his outlook on life and his political thinking is informed by his privileged past, and so many of his closest friends and advisers, both inside and outside the shadow cabinet, are creatures of that same narrow world. It's not something Cameron likes to draw attention to - but then of course he wouldn't he?

[Hullfox]

Not sure if that's strictly true Webbo. Where power is concerned at least, Cameron has clearly laid his cards on the table.

Altogether, 14 of Cameron's front bench spokesmen are old Etonians. Another three work in his private office. Many of the 14 are from a previous generation.

So much of his outlook on life and his political thinking is informed by his privileged past, and so many of his closest friends and advisers, both inside and outside the shadow cabinet, are creatures of that same narrow world. It's not something Cameron likes to draw attention to - but then of course he wouldn't he?

I reckon there's a big chunk of his outlook on life based on his experience as an ordinary bloke with a severely disabled son. For all his wealth and privileges, he was just ordinary helpless Dave for much of the time.

I'm prepared to give him his chance but then I felt the same way with Blair.

What a gullible twat I am.

[Webbo]

Not sure if that's strictly true Webbo. Where power is concerned at least, Cameron has clearly laid his cards on the table.

Altogether, 14 of Cameron's front bench spokesmen are old Etonians. Another three work in his private office. Many of the 14 are from a previous generation.

So much of his outlook on life and his political thinking is informed by his privileged past, and so many of his closest friends and advisers, both inside and outside the shadow cabinet, are creatures of that same narrow world. It's not something Cameron likes to draw attention to - but then of course he wouldn't he?

I'm no fan of Cameron, he wouldn't have been My choice as leader.

The fact is though that Tony Blair went to Fettes school in Edinburgh, Scotland's equivalent of Eton. Harriet Harman is ex Rodean the female equivalent . Alistair Darling and Ex home secretary Charles Clarke are also ex public school. They're just the ones I know about there are probably more.

Everybody's background is different to somebody else's. We can't use that as an excuse to exclude them from office.

[breadandcheese]

Not sure if that's strictly true Webbo. Where power is concerned at least, Cameron has clearly laid his cards on the table.

Altogether, 14 of Cameron's front bench spokesmen are old Etonians. Another three work in his private office. Many of the 14 are from a previous generation.

So much of his outlook on life and his political thinking is informed by his privileged past, and so many of his closest friends and advisers, both inside and outside the shadow cabinet, are creatures of that same narrow world. It's not something Cameron likes to draw attention to - but then of course he wouldn't he?

but does that make him any less qualified than Gordon Brown and his team of career politicians, who have equally little experience in the real world?

At the end of the day, the civil servants implementing the directives are all the same, and the policy researchers are all of a similar ability.

[Jon the Hat]

but does that make him any less qualified than Gordon Brown and his team of career politicians, who have equally little experience in the real world?

At the end of the day, the civil servants implementing the directives are all the same, and the policy researchers are all of a similar ability.

This. I just trust the instincts of Tories more than I do the Labour party. Low taxes, small government works, high taxes, big government doesn't.

[l444ry]

This. I just trust the instincts of Tories more than I do the Labour party. Low taxes, small government works, high taxes, big government doesn't.

But also the same party that fought tooth and nail against all the heath, education, housing and welfare state improvements that every living person has benefitted from in this country since the second world war.

It was no coincidence that the country chose to turf war hero Churchill out after the war either. That generation weren't prepared to have gone through all those sacrifices just to return to the Conservatives again.

Just a shame that the generations since have such short memories and are so easily bought off.

[Guest Bilo]

This. I just trust the instincts of Tories more than I do the Labour party. Low taxes, small government works, high taxes, big government doesn't.

Very true this.

Labour only really enjoyed success in their first couple of terms by acting like Tories. Once they returned to the 'tax and spend' mentality of Labour governments of old, everything started to go horribly wrong and the country will be left counting the cost for years to come. The next government (almost certainly Tory) will half to pick up the pieces throughout their first term, and no-one should expect a quick fix. Cos it isn't coming.

[Webbo]

Just a shame that the generations since have such short memories and are so easily bought off.

I don't know how the Tories buy anybody off. It's the Labour party that ply people with benefits and create countless unnecessary jobs in the public sector.

For all Labour's massive increases in public spending there are still people who can't get the drugs they need because of lack of funds. The long term unemployed are still unemployed.

A short memory is all you need to see the complete balls up Labour have made of the economy.

[davieG]

Who ever is in next will end up with increased taxes it's just whether they are indirect or direct - there's very little left to sell off to fund cuts which is what has subsidised government expenditure since Thatcher came to power, maybe just the Post Office, bits of the NHS and Prisons.

What we need is a government to actually cut their own exorbitant running costs - but turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

The population has become soft and continually expects something for nothing in all areas of society, both rich and poor and the vast majority of those in between who generally bear the brunt of it all. It will take a very strong government to reverse that trend as it would prove highly unpopular.

[breadandcheese]

But also the same party that fought tooth and nail against all the heath, education, housing and welfare state improvements that every living person has benefitted from in this country since the second world war.

It was no coincidence that the country chose to turf war hero Churchill out after the war either. That generation weren't prepared to have gone through all those sacrifices just to return to the Conservatives again.

Just a shame that the generations since have such short memories and are so easily bought off.

To counter that argument, you could say that this has been at the expense of opportunity and upward mobility. So much so that I would argue our society is much more unfair than previously, with more importance than ever before on who you know rather than what you know, entrenching a whole class of people unable to climb higher.

A case in point is the education system, which now does a very poor job of differentiating between candidates (hence top universities now looking at tests over and above standard exams or some private schools looking at the international baccalaureat). As a result, it becomes that much harder for today's young people to differentiate themselves as the best candidates so only those who have contacts into certain industries, or those who can afford extra-curricular activities to improve their CV, are the ones likely to get the best jobs.

There is also some sociological study that showed that those countries with larger welfare states are generally less receptive to immigration, than those with smaller welfare states.

I would argue that whilst these welfare, health and housing improvements have improved the country, there is an argument that they have stifled opportunity and mobility between classes.

[Jay]

I don't know how the Tories buy anybody off. It's the Labour party that ply people with benefits and create countless unnecessary jobs in the public sector.

For all Labour's massive increases in public spending there are still people who can't get the drugs they need because of lack of funds. The long term unemployed are still unemployed.

A short memory is all you need to see the complete balls up Labour have made of the economy.

unless I am remember things incorrectly Unemployment, The Economy, The Health Service and just about everything else weren't exactly in a great state of affairs the last time the Tories were in either.

[Webbo]

unless I am remember things incorrectly Unemployment, The Economy, The Health Service and just about everything else weren't exactly in a great state of affairs the last time the Tories were in either.

Weren't brilliant no. But we didn't have the high taxes and massive public debt that we have now either.

[l444ry]

Weren't brilliant no. But we didn't have the high taxes and massive public debt that we have now either.

Having said that, taxes were higher and public debt was greater than when they took office. Can't have it both ways!!

[Webbo]

Having said that, taxes were higher and public debt was greater than when they took office. Can't have it both ways!!

I don't have any stats to back me up but I'm almost certain that's not true.

[Sir Fynwy]

I don't know what i'm talking about but meh.

[Ultra]

I don't know how the Tories buy anybody off. It's the Labour party that ply people with benefits and create countless unnecessary jobs in the public sector.

For all Labour's massive increases in public spending there are still people who can't get the drugs they need because of lack of funds. The long term unemployed are still unemployed.

A short memory is all you need to see the complete balls up Labour have made of the economy.

Then how do you explain the fact that, after eight years of the most right-wing government in its history, the economy in America is in an even worse state?

[Webbo]

Source

Tax freedom day, the day when we stop working to pay tax and start earning money for ourselves.

1979-29th May

1997-25th May

It appears you were right about taxes I humbly apologise

[Hullfox]

Then how do you explain the fact that, after eight years of the most right-wing government in its history, the economy in America is in an even worse state?

Yeah and the most right wing government in Germany caused hyper inflation and slaughtered Jews. What's your point?

[l444ry]

Source

Tax freedom day, the day when we stop working to pay tax and start earning money for ourselves.

1979-29th May

1997-25th May

Tax Freedom Day is just right-wing nonsense to overstate the amount of tax paid. It's based on the stupid assumption that we all pay tax at the same rate. As 90% odd of people are on the basic rate, earning less than £25,000 it is therefore self-evident that the Adam Smith Institute are being shifty with the truth.

Even if you want to believe these figures, how high is taxing and spending by historic standards? You could be forgiven for thinking that we must be soaring into some new stratosphere, but it's not so. The tax take for 07-08, according to this "tax freedom day" figure, is lower than John Major's final year. And Labour's tax take is lower than every single year under Margaret Thatcher....... Every single year.

[Sir Fynwy]

Source

Tax freedom day, the day when we stop working to pay tax and start earning money for ourselves.

1979-29th May

1997-25th May

4 days more tax to try and rebuild the health service and whilst not selling off all of the countries assets doesn't seem to be a great loss. You can argue all you like about ideology but they are all pretty much in the same boat now, we are unlikely to get small government under any party and small fiddles on tax aren't going to fix anything.

[Thracian]

Then how do you explain the fact that, after eight years of the most right-wing government in its history, the economy in America is in an even worse state?

Reading that it's hard to say who you're condemning most - the George Bush administration or your own Labour government. Seems to me an admission that both have been worse than shit and pressing evidence that we need a complete change.

What staggers me is that, despite your own veiled admission that our present government has made a mess of things there's no sign at all that you'll stop supporting them - and plenty of others like you.

Times both you and others forward the desperately negative argument, not that Labour is less than shocking, but that others have been worse. As if that should be any comfort. Cos it's not.

What I'd like to see is a government that offers genuine leadership and direction. A government that sets high standards for itself and for its members, both morally and philosophically, so setting an example that others might respect and be encouraged to emulate.

Too often and in too many areas we are led by people who don't seem to have the brains or the wisdom for the job. People who simply lack the logic to apply the simple principle, "what is fair" because they cannot see ahead sufficiently to follow theory through to likely conclusion.

Somewhere along the line they get their calculations wrong and well meaning ideas cause more problems than they solve.

Hypocrisy is hard to avoid for everyone but what merit is there in being led by hypocrites? There will never be perfection - only perhaps the aim for perfection - but what we need is an administration whose principles are fair to all the people they are elected to serve.

Principles that stand up when tested and whose avocates are strong enough and sincere enough not to compromise those principles for short term gain.

We need leaders who demonstrate that they hold power for the good of our country and the people in it rather than themselves.

[Dr The Singh]

Reading that it's hard to say who you're condemning most - the George Bush administration or your own Labour government. Seems to me an admission that both have been worse than shit and pressing evidence that we need a complete change.

What staggers me is that, despite your own veiled admission that our present government has made a mess of things there's no sign at all that you'll stop supporting them - and plenty of others like you.

Times both you and others forward the desperately negative argument, not that Labour is less than shocking, but that others have been worse. As if that should be any comfort. Cos it's not.

What I'd like to see is a government that offers genuine leadership and direction. A government that sets high standards for itself and for its members, both morally and philosophically, so setting an example that others might respect and be encouraged to emulate.

Too often and in too many areas we are led by people who don't seem to have the brains or the wisdom for the job. People who simply lack the logic to apply the simple principle, "what is fair" because they cannot see ahead sufficiently to follow theory through to likely conclusion.

Somewhere along the line they get their calculations wrong and well meaning ideas cause more problems than they solve.

Hypocrisy is hard to avoid for everyone but what merit is there in being led by hypocrites? There will never be perfection - only perhaps the aim for perfection - but what we need is an administration whose principles are fair to all the people they are elected to serve.

Principles that stand up when tested and whose avocates are strong enough and sincere enough not to compromise those principles for short term gain.

We need leaders who demonstrate that they hold power for the good of our country and the people in it rather than themselves.

Were screwed?????

I'm not the most knowledgeable on politics, but all i see these days are 'reactive' politics, politicians etc react to our problems and even worse react to what ever is in vogue with the media and public, rather then having honest opnions, and looking at 'real' issues. It's just become one big popularity contents without any substance, which politicians like chameleons change there image to suit!!!

[breadandcheese]

4 days more tax to try and rebuild the health service and whilst not selling off all of the countries assets doesn't seem to be a great loss. You can argue all you like about ideology but they are all pretty much in the same boat now, we are unlikely to get small government under any party and small fiddles on tax aren't going to fix anything.

That's simply untrue. There's a belief that small government and free markets failed. This is simply untrue and put out by those who have no understanding on what caused the financial crisis. It's straying completely off topic, as this thread is about MPs expenses, so I'll leave it at that.

Personally, I am aboslutely aghast at how long this MP expenses is dragging on when it has the simplest of solutions. Instead, we have an investigation taking ages, attacks on the speaker as if it exonerates the MPs (although I do believe the speaker should go, more because he is useless than because of this) and a belief that an election will put it right without any changes as yet to the system.

A simple solution - Everything bought on taxpayer money is owned by the taxpayer. If an MP needs a second home, we the taxpayer buy it, they get to live in it and then there is no need to worry about unnecessary profiteering by MPs on second home ownership. If the house needs to be furnished, again, we pay for everything, we own it. If the MP wants to buy the things at a later date, they can buy it at the market value. Simple.

We then need to have primary candidacy votes for our constituencies. The sitting MP should have to face a selection process by local party members, as to whether they still want him/her to represent their consituency at the next election. This way, we can get away from the situation of those voters not voting for a party because they felt the MP was profligate with taxpayer money.

After this, a general election should then be called to vote for an entire new house.

Problem solved.

[Sir Fynwy]

That's simply untrue. There's a belief that small government and free markets failed. This is simply untrue and put out by those who have no understanding on what caused the financial crisis. It's straying completely off topic, as this thread is about MPs expenses, so I'll leave it at that.

Personally, I am aboslutely aghast at how long this MP expenses is dragging on when it has the simplest of solutions. Instead, we have an investigation taking ages, attacks on the speaker as if it exonerates the MPs (although I do believe the speaker should go, more because he is useless than because of this) and a belief that an election will put it right without any changes as yet to the system.

A simple solution - Everything bought on taxpayer money is owned by the taxpayer. If an MP needs a second home, we the taxpayer buy it, they get to live in it and then there is no need to worry about unnecessary profiteering by MPs on second home ownership. If the house needs to be furnished, again, we pay for everything, we own it. If the MP wants to buy the things at a later date, they can buy it at the market value. Simple.

We then need to have primary candidacy votes for our constituencies. The sitting MP should have to face a selection process by local party members, as to whether they still want him/her to represent their consituency at the next election. This way, we can get away from the situation of those voters not voting for a party because they felt the MP was profligate with taxpayer money.

After this, a general election should then be called to vote for an entire new house.

Problem solved.

My comment was based on the fact that none of the main parties will bring in small government not that it wouldn't work, the turkeys won't be voting for Christmas anytime soon. IMO we need less than 50% of the amount of MP's we currently have and a more proactive and smaller civil service, it won't happen unless we have a revolution and unfortunately the public is too busy watching reality TV and soaps to care.

[davieG]

My comment was based on the fact that none of the main parties will bring in small government not that it wouldn't work, the turkeys won't be voting for Christmas anytime soon. IMO we need less than 50% of the amount of MP's we currently have and a more proactive and smaller civil service, it won't happen unless we have a revolution and unfortunately the public is too busy watching reality TV and soaps to care.

And reading about Jordan and Peter.