The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Government's personal spending habits are all over the news at the moment (Tesco are probably taking notes to send them advertising) but a lot of it seems to be media hype again.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Page:
I think the point is that this sort of thing HAS always gone on, and to create such a furore over it at this point, simply because it's a slow news week/month, would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic.
Free speech is important, but journalism has been and continues to be, in cases such as this, completely counter-productive. It drags an already inept government away from its duties in order to defend itself over tedious and (in the grand scheme of things) piffling matters.
The economic crisis IS something to worry about, but to attack the government over bills for light-bulbs or chandeliers, is demented. The government, much as I despise it myself, is the only entity capable of guiding us out of this mess. I'll be the first to stand up and say Gordon Brown needs to grow some balls or pass the mantle to someone else, but it's still crazy to start demanding investigations into a few thousand pound here, a few thousand there, being squandered.
The media act like children sometimes. Now, surely, is the time they grew up.
Free speech is important, but journalism has been and continues to be, in cases such as this, completely counter-productive. It drags an already inept government away from its duties in order to defend itself over tedious and (in the grand scheme of things) piffling matters.
The economic crisis IS something to worry about, but to attack the government over bills for light-bulbs or chandeliers, is demented. The government, much as I despise it myself, is the only entity capable of guiding us out of this mess. I'll be the first to stand up and say Gordon Brown needs to grow some balls or pass the mantle to someone else, but it's still crazy to start demanding investigations into a few thousand pound here, a few thousand there, being squandered.
The media act like children sometimes. Now, surely, is the time they grew up.
Fry makes some good points, but I'm sure what he is saying will be taken out of context.
No, the scandal shouldn't sway votes either way, he's absolutely right, and I'm sure this sort of thing went on as much with Churchill and other so called 'great' leaders of our time.
The only problem with his arguement is that he seems to think we live in a democracy, which anyone who studies the way in which governments are elected in this country may argue with.
No, the scandal shouldn't sway votes either way, he's absolutely right, and I'm sure this sort of thing went on as much with Churchill and other so called 'great' leaders of our time.
The only problem with his arguement is that he seems to think we live in a democracy, which anyone who studies the way in which governments are elected in this country may argue with.
I think Stephen Fry illustrates my sentiments perfectly : - Expenses Row
What a legend.
And if you liked that : -
Double standards
What a legend.
And if you liked that : -
Double standards
Expenses are fair enough. Costs incurred while doing your job, i.e staying over or travel etc.
However, having your f###ing moat cleaned at the expense of the taxpayer is an absolute joke. How is that essential to their job? It's not, so they shouldn't be able to claim for it.
All these politicians who are apologising are only saying sorry because they got caught! If they hadn't been exposed they'd still be doing it!
If anyone in a private company was caught rigging expenses it would probably go down as fraud or maybe theft. So the same thing should happen here. However, it won't as MPs will make sure they're alright. Sod everyone else and the recession we're in. As long as they can claim back costs for fixing their tennis courts and the porn they've watched on telly then everything is hunky dory as far as their concerned.
These people are supposedly leading our country. Is it any wonder we're in such a mess?!
And just to clear things up, I haven't lost my job - I think I'd be even more p****d off if I had though!
However, having your f###ing moat cleaned at the expense of the taxpayer is an absolute joke. How is that essential to their job? It's not, so they shouldn't be able to claim for it.
All these politicians who are apologising are only saying sorry because they got caught! If they hadn't been exposed they'd still be doing it!
If anyone in a private company was caught rigging expenses it would probably go down as fraud or maybe theft. So the same thing should happen here. However, it won't as MPs will make sure they're alright. Sod everyone else and the recession we're in. As long as they can claim back costs for fixing their tennis courts and the porn they've watched on telly then everything is hunky dory as far as their concerned.
These people are supposedly leading our country. Is it any wonder we're in such a mess?!
And just to clear things up, I haven't lost my job - I think I'd be even more p****d off if I had though!
I can understand expenses, as in travel where necessary between constituent locations and London. I get the occassional travel allowance to visit the London office after all.
The house scheme does sort of make sense too, though that Hotel idea does sound a better way to work it. The main problem seems to be that MPs all take advantage of the 'rules' and find ways to re-interpret them for their own benefit.
The house scheme does sort of make sense too, though that Hotel idea does sound a better way to work it. The main problem seems to be that MPs all take advantage of the 'rules' and find ways to re-interpret them for their own benefit.
Surely a fair system would be to allow them the same allowances that you and I have as a taxpayer?
I don't really understand it, I think they should just build a hotel just for all the MPs and have them stay there instead of having second homes. And if their boiler breaks at their thier residence then maybe they should pay for it themselves out of their 6 figure salary. I don't think an MP wife of a millionaire deserves £6000 for security.
The Government's personal spending habits are all over the news at the moment (Tesco are probably taking notes to send them advertising) but a lot of it seems to be media hype again.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Page: