5 ms·

Here we were, seeing headlines about some MPs who claimed a gas bill twice, or a second home when they didn't really need a second home. It's peanuts. It's irre

by axod 17y ago

Here we were, seeing headlines about some MPs who claimed a gas bill twice, or a second home when they didn't really need a second home. It's peanuts. It's irrelevant. It's small fry. Obviously if you make rules fuzzy and allow for second homes, people will push those rules up to the limit. Just like anyone else would. Whilst at the same time, bailing out banks for BILLIONS. I guess it's easier to sell papers with a headline about an MPs husband claiming expenses for a £10 adult movie, than it is to investigate a multi billion bank giveaway. If the crowd-sourcing finds a receipt for gimp outfit you can be 100% sure that'll be front page news. But why should anyone care? Is there a risk that MPs may be spending too much on gimp outfits? could thy all start claiming gimp outfits and we'd have no money to pay the NHS bills? No. Exactly.

gaius 17y ago
I don't see how these two things are even slightly related. Other than the Lloyds business, what was not above board about the bank bailout? What laws were broken? How were any of the people at the Bank of England who recommended and actually implemented the bailout personally enriched? Note that according to the latest Budget, the actual cost of the bank bailout when the dust settles is expected to be 10Bn (5% of the welfare budget) and if Alastair Darling can be convinced not to wreck RBS, we (the taxpayer) might even make a profit on it. We own 84% of RBS, that's where the money went, into acquiring stuff, not into a black hole. Not that we'll see any of it mind, but that too is beside the point. If you want to conflate anything, MPs expenses + "dodgy dossier" is the way to go.
- axod 17y ago
  The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Claiming a few blue movies on the tax payer is the same, but hardly in the same league in terms of amount of money spent. I'd just rather read about real news - that matters. Not a few grand some MPs have claimed on expenses that they maybe shouldn't have but it's a grey area. What is the total money claimed by all MPs, that shouldn't have been claimed by MPs? 6 figures maybe early 7 figures? Oh well that'll keep the NHS running for another few hours - the scale of this just seems miniscule. It's like finding out someone in the ships bar has stolen £10 from petty cash while the titanic sinks. </rant>
  - gaius 17y ago
    The Bank of England has always been the "lender of last resort". That's integral to fractional reserve banking. That ship has sailed my friend :-) Now personally, I would have no problem with a few banks failing. There are 700-odd in the City, what's one or two? Wiping out existing shareholders was the right way to do it tho'.
  - hga 17y ago
    If you believe the Clinton impeachment was about perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, it was arguably worse than all of the above. But based on what I read of the first batch of (leaked) expense disclosures, they paint a pattern nearly as bad as Clinton's, much worse than "claiming a few blue movies*, one of an irredeemably corrupt ruling class. Granted, this is corruption at a "retail" personal level, but it's hard to imagine these same people aren't as corrupt when they're acting in their capacity as MPs and ... how do you say it? ... members of the government/ministers/front benchers/whatever.
    - nfnaaron 17y ago
      Yes, exactly. While the corruption may be "retail," the fact or suspicion calls into question their ability to conduct more substantial business in the people's interest.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Tax money is always spent without our consent in this sense. I don't recall the government asking my personal permission the last time they build a hospital or maintained a road. But they are elected and authorized to spend that money.

by axod 17y ago

gaius 17y ago

I don't see how these two things are even slightly related. Other than the Lloyds business, what was not above board about the bank bailout? What laws were broken? How were any of the people at the Bank of England who recommended and actually implemented the bailout personally enriched? Note that according to the latest Budget, the actual cost of the bank bailout when the dust settles is expected to be 10Bn (5% of the welfare budget) and if Alastair Darling can be convinced not to wreck RBS, we (the taxpayer) might even make a profit on it. We own 84% of RBS, that's where the money went, into acquiring stuff, not into a black hole. Not that we'll see any of it mind, but that too is beside the point. If you want to conflate anything, MPs expenses + "dodgy dossier" is the way to go.

axod 17y ago
The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Claiming a few blue movies on the tax payer is the same, but hardly in the same league in terms of amount of money spent. I'd just rather read about real news - that matters. Not a few grand some MPs have claimed on expenses that they maybe shouldn't have but it's a grey area. What is the total money claimed by all MPs, that shouldn't have been claimed by MPs? 6 figures maybe early 7 figures? Oh well that'll keep the NHS running for another few hours - the scale of this just seems miniscule. It's like finding out someone in the ships bar has stolen £10 from petty cash while the titanic sinks. </rant>
- gaius 17y ago
  The Bank of England has always been the "lender of last resort". That's integral to fractional reserve banking. That ship has sailed my friend :-) Now personally, I would have no problem with a few banks failing. There are 700-odd in the City, what's one or two? Wiping out existing shareholders was the right way to do it tho'.
- hga 17y ago
  If you believe the Clinton impeachment was about perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, it was arguably worse than all of the above. But based on what I read of the first batch of (leaked) expense disclosures, they paint a pattern nearly as bad as Clinton's, much worse than "claiming a few blue movies*, one of an irredeemably corrupt ruling class. Granted, this is corruption at a "retail" personal level, but it's hard to imagine these same people aren't as corrupt when they're acting in their capacity as MPs and ... how do you say it? ... members of the government/ministers/front benchers/whatever.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    Yes, exactly. While the corruption may be "retail," the fact or suspicion calls into question their ability to conduct more substantial business in the people's interest.
- foldr 17y ago
  >The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Tax money is always spent without our consent in this sense. I don't recall the government asking my personal permission the last time they build a hospital or maintained a road. But they are elected and authorized to spend that money.