Wednesday 13th April 2016

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 6:40 am

Morning all.

The magic of this satirical piece by Frankie Boyle is illustrating how extreme words and abhorrent actions shouldn't be described as such. When considering a group, common traits are exactly that. Common. Not extreme. But if that's the case...? Please read in its entirety, quoting snippets can't do it justice.

Politicians don’t know the price of milk – but they do know how to set up a shell company

http://gu.com/p/4t9n2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 7:00 am

Steve Bell's latest on Osborne and BBC news reporting.

Steve Bell: Lord Bumnose and his large dividends – cartoon

http://gu.com/p/4ta3d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 8:00 am

BBC Politics ‏@BBCPolitics 27m27 minutes ago
All homes and businesses would gain access to superfast broadband by 2017 if Plaid Cymru got into power at the...

Don't make me laugh. They must be in cloud cuckoo land with that timescale - let alone the universal promise.

Superfast as received by one of our neighbours - who is not that far from the cabinet - is *9mbps*. They love paying the extra subscription for such a massive upgrade - not. Another of our neighbour has been completely stuffed by opting for superfast which BT should never have been allowed to sell them or claim they could have as they are too far away from the cabinet. They now get less speed than with their old connection - below 2mbps now - and have lost the ability to access things they used to be able to such as TV via the internet. And they've been told they can't go back to the old connection - it's irreversible apparently.

Morning peeps.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 8:15 am

Leslie William Smith
‏@CustoperSmith
@itvnews @KarlTurnerMP When one is blind folded and in a rubber suit it is hard to tell what others do for a living.

Sorry.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 8:36 am

Mr.W, apparently, had no idea that the woman he took everywhere with him and who handed out nice little business cards to his friends and colleagues was a)a prostitute, b)a dominatrix, or c)both. No idea at all. Of course, as soon as he found out, he ditched her.

Now we have Dan F Hodges going ballistic on Twitter, saying that anyone who thinks Mr.W has done anything wrong and/or that the media have protected him in some way, are hypocrites. Others are now bleating that the lady in question has had her privacy breached by the row.

There's a theme developing here that Mr.W's antics should private - after all, the slebs whose lives were routinely trashed in the tabloids didn't like it, therefore anyone who supports Hacked Off but wants an explanation of why Mr.W's affairs were kept quiet is a hypocritical prat.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but when a senior politician is in a long-term relationship with someone who is touting paid-for sexual services to other people inhabiting the corridors of power, and the media know all about it but say nowt, I think it's a teeny bit different from invading the privacy of famous actors or, indeed, hacking the phone of a murdered teenager thus compromising an ongoing police investigation.

I do not give a fiddlers' fart if Mr.W and his "friend" did nothing more than chat about kittens and swap cupcake recipes - he is a government minister responsible for the media, he is regularly squiring a known dominatrix about town, and the media he has power over says nothing.

Perhaps D.Feckin' Hodges might like to explain to me why he thinks that's OK.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 9:09 am

I follow political blogger 'Another Angry Voice' on Facebook - I liked this comment he made after discussing the desperation of Goldsmith's campaign - and the comment made by Bernie Hastie.

I find the line on Sadiq Khan in the (bitterly anti-Corbyn) Guardian has been highly amusing.

Their argument is that if Sadiq Khan doesn't win the London Mayoral election it will be a savage blow for Jeremy Corbyn because Labour should be winning it, but if Sadiq Khan wins the London Mayoral election it will be a savage blow for Jeremy Corbyn because Sadiq Khan isn't one of Jeremy Corbyn's inner circle.

If Labour lose Corbyn is crap and should resign but if Labour win Corbyn is crap and should resign!

It's almost as if there's some kind of underhand agenda at the Guardian isn't it?

View previous replies

Bernie Hastie: Ducking stool logic.

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 9:14 am

ephemerid wrote:Mr.W, apparently, had no idea that the woman he took everywhere with him and who handed out nice little business cards to his friends and colleagues was a)a prostitute, b)a dominatrix, or c)both. No idea at all. Of course, as soon as he found out, he ditched her.

Now we have Dan F Hodges going ballistic on Twitter, saying that anyone who thinks Mr.W has done anything wrong and/or that the media have protected him in some way, are hypocrites. Others are now bleating that the lady in question has had her privacy breached by the row.

There's a theme developing here that Mr.W's antics should private - after all, the slebs whose lives were routinely trashed in the tabloids didn't like it, therefore anyone who supports Hacked Off but wants an explanation of why Mr.W's affairs were kept quiet is a hypocritical prat.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but when a senior politician is in a long-term relationship with someone who is touting paid-for sexual services to other people inhabiting the corridors of power, and the media know all about it but say nowt, I think it's a teeny bit different from invading the privacy of famous actors or, indeed, hacking the phone of a murdered teenager thus compromising an ongoing police investigation.

I do not give a fiddlers' fart if Mr.W and his "friend" did nothing more than chat about kittens and swap cupcake recipes - he is a government minister responsible for the media, he is regularly squiring a known dominatrix about town, and the media he has power over says nothing.

Perhaps D.Feckin' Hodges might like to explain to me why he thinks that's OK.

Caught a bit of Kuenssberg discussing this on Today. She didn't sound very happy.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 9:26 am

Morfternoon all...

So far oh dear re Whipping-fail, surely?

Natalie Rowe is implying (very strongly) that there is much more to come on this...and, as RR2 posted last night, has already called him out on the 6 month relationship (3 years in reality), the 'I didn't know her occupation' (Natalie states that she has proof that he did know) and the 'no press interest' (again, Ms Rowe states she has/has heard a tape where Whipping-fail re-assures the lady in question that he had the story 'spiked').

I'm surprised none of the attention has been focussed on whether he did use tax-payers money to pay her rent and to pay for her services, given that the 'expenses scandal' and the 'tax transparency' are apparently very very much in the public interest.

It does rather neatly re-open the can of worms that is 'Press Regulation' though - and, here in Hope (where I live, just North of Peterborough) I believe(TM) that it will also increase the profile (and hopefully sales) of Whipping Up A Storm, leading to a nice big payday for Natalie, to repay her for her tenacity and effort (and not a little bit to bring the focus back to Gidiot the Coke-addled (allegedly) Gimp (allegedly))

...never mind, look over there - the Labour party is 'anti-semitic' (say people with very little to no evidence, about a party whose last leader was Jewish), Corbyn's done something or other so he must go NOW (oh yes, that's it - he over paid tax by £270 and was late getting his tax return in...no hint of any overseas investments, no connections to banksters, no connections to the media being so gleefully quoted by the anti-Corbynista, no connections to the multi-nationals banking overseas to avoid local taxation whilst victimising and terrorising the sick, disabled and poor or anything of the sort....but HE MUST GO NOW

)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 9:35 am

Ho hum, Nicky.

John Profumo, who had a "friendship" with a lady who also had friendships with known gangsters and spies, was forced to resign over it.

Mr.W, who has (had?) a "friendship" with a lady who also has friendships with known gangsters and criminal figures, is protected. Why?

The lady in question has accompanied her powerful friend to all manner of official functions, and I can thus only assume that she has been DV'd by our security services; but if she is OK to attend functions like this, and does so, why the bleating that her privacy has been invaded?

I have no issue with professional escorts, people who let it be known that they are in the dominatrix business, or senior government officials having friendships with them - but I certainly do have an issue with the MSM treating this with kid gloves because they want Mr.W to continue to allow them to behave in a way that would not be allowed were the said Mr.W minded to implement Leveson.
As long as they, the media, keep his private matters private (well, not-very-private matters, in fact, given where the lady has been seen with him) they get to carry on as normal, Leveson will not cause them any trouble, and their fervent wish to see the BBC neutered will come true - it's a symbiotic and corrupt relationship that does none of us any favours, apart from the protagonists involved.

Sickening.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 9:58 am

HuffPostUK Politics ‏@HuffPostUKPol 5m5 minutes ago
Government cuts to in-work benefits dwarf tax credits "protection", figures show http://huff.to/1S4cRtn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:04 am

Wes Streeting MP ‏@wesstreeting 2m2 minutes ago
The 'senior Labour MP' quoted here should be ashamed of themselves. 'MP being paid shocker'. This isn't 19th century http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... -revealed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:04 am

Morning all.

Just off to the library so sadly I won't be around for the debate on forced academisation this afternoon. I'll take a look at hansard later and see how many "facts" came out from the DfE side.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:07 am

ephemerid wrote:Mr.W, apparently, had no idea that the woman he took everywhere with him and who handed out nice little business cards to his friends and colleagues was a)a prostitute, b)a dominatrix, or c)both. No idea at all. Of course, as soon as he found out, he ditched her.

Now we have Dan F Hodges going ballistic on Twitter, saying that anyone who thinks Mr.W has done anything wrong and/or that the media have protected him in some way, are hypocrites. Others are now bleating that the lady in question has had her privacy breached by the row.

There's a theme developing here that Mr.W's antics should private - after all, the slebs whose lives were routinely trashed in the tabloids didn't like it, therefore anyone who supports Hacked Off but wants an explanation of why Mr.W's affairs were kept quiet is a hypocritical prat.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but when a senior politician is in a long-term relationship with someone who is touting paid-for sexual services to other people inhabiting the corridors of power, and the media know all about it but say nowt, I think it's a teeny bit different from invading the privacy of famous actors or, indeed, hacking the phone of a murdered teenager thus compromising an ongoing police investigation.

I do not give a fiddlers' fart if Mr.W and his "friend" did nothing more than chat about kittens and swap cupcake recipes - he is a government minister responsible for the media, he is regularly squiring a known dominatrix about town, and the media he has power over says nothing.

Perhaps D.Feckin' Hodges might like to explain to me why he thinks that's OK.

Why did media bother keeping JW's outside interests out of the papers? This relationship of his wouldn't have altered my opinion of him one way or another - whatever, you know? I don't care what JW got up to with a consenting adult as long as he/they didn't break the law. If JW used his position as government minister to get himself or others preferential treatment or create policy for one set of folks not applicable to himself and some others - if he does that, he's compromised, wrong and requires getting thrown out of government.

I don't like media breaking the law to get at peoples' information, reporting untruths, intimidating or threatening people.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:08 am

Good-morning, everyone

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:09 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Just off to the library so sadly I won't be around for the debate on forced academisation this afternoon. I'll take a look at hansard later and see how many "facts" came out from the DfE side.

Have a good day, Roger

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:16 am

Lonewolfie wrote:I'm surprised none of the attention has been focussed on whether he did use tax-payers money to pay her rent and to pay for her services, given that the 'expenses scandal' and the 'tax transparency' are apparently very very much in the public interest.

(cJA - edit)

If JW used taxpayer funds in that way, out he goes, end of.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:17 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
BBC Politics ‏@BBCPolitics 27m27 minutes ago
All homes and businesses would gain access to superfast broadband by 2017 if Plaid Cymru got into power at the...
Don't make me laugh. They must be in cloud cuckoo land with that timescale - let alone the universal promise.

Superfast as received by one of our neighbours - who is not that far from the cabinet - is *9mbps*. They love paying the extra subscription for such a massive upgrade - not. Another of our neighbour has been completely stuffed by opting for superfast which BT should never have been allowed to sell them or claim they could have as they are too far away from the cabinet. They now get less speed than with their old connection - below 2mbps now - and have lost the ability to access things they used to be able to such as TV via the internet. And they've been told they can't go back to the old connection - it's irreversible apparently.

Morning peeps.

Many years ago, before BT starred in a cut-price sell-off, there were plans being developed to roll out fast (for the time) and inexpensive ISDN data connections across the country for home as well as business use. This was at a time when the only other way to access the infant internet was via a modem and telephone call charges billed by the minute.

Then the decision was made to sell off BT and orders quietly given from on high to ditch the ISDN plans, metered call charges were what produced best value for shareholders so metered call charges it would be. And this new-fangled internet thing, like prestel before it, would never amount to much for most people anyway, so why waste public money on improving data connections in the first place?

So we got lumbered for years and years with slow modem connections. I remember when the 56k modems appeared - with their amazing ability to download or upload a whole megabyte in as little as five minutes.

British short-termism and not caring about the value, just the price and immediate balance-sheet figures at its finest.

(Edited for a typo)

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:23 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Wes Streeting MP ‏@wesstreeting 2m2 minutes ago
The 'senior Labour MP' quoted here should be ashamed of themselves. 'MP being paid shocker'. This isn't 19th century http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... -revealed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.

How dare you guys, Telegraph?
Corbyn's pension savings?
Juxtaposed to the Tory government PM and his front bencher's outrageous wealth neither one did anything to earn and both take pains to prevent paying UK tax like they should?
If the 'senior Labour MP' isn't named, as far as I'm concerned, it's a fictional Labour MP.
And bad fiction too.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:38 am

nickyinnorfolk wrote:I follow political blogger 'Another Angry Voice' on Facebook - I liked this comment he made after discussing the desperation of Goldsmith's campaign - and the comment made by Bernie Hastie.

I find the line on Sadiq Khan in the (bitterly anti-Corbyn) Guardian has been highly amusing.

Their argument is that if Sadiq Khan doesn't win the London Mayoral election it will be a savage blow for Jeremy Corbyn because Labour should be winning it, but if Sadiq Khan wins the London Mayoral election it will be a savage blow for Jeremy Corbyn because Sadiq Khan isn't one of Jeremy Corbyn's inner circle.

If Labour lose Corbyn is crap and should resign but if Labour win Corbyn is crap and should resign!

It's almost as if there's some kind of underhand agenda at the Guardian isn't it?

View previous replies

Bernie Hastie: Ducking stool logic.

Zac Goldsmith has apparently been caught fibbing (or, more charitably, suffering a worrying degree of amnesia) about Babar Ahmed.

Just after he had to deny to hacks that his campaign was racist (says it all that even they are finding it hard to stomach)

Maybe - hopefully - he will end up wishing he had never taken the Crosby shilling

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 10:52 am

citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Wes Streeting MP ‏@wesstreeting 2m2 minutes ago
The 'senior Labour MP' quoted here should be ashamed of themselves. 'MP being paid shocker'. This isn't 19th century http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... -revealed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.
How dare you guys, Telegraph?
Corbyn's pension savings?
Juxtaposed to the Tory government PM and his front bencher's outrageous wealth neither one did anything to earn and both take pains to prevent paying UK tax like they should?
If the 'senior Labour MP' isn't named, as far as I'm concerned, it's a fictional Labour MP.
And bad fiction too.

A quick bit of arithmetic tells me that if Corbyn had been an MP for 30 years and received a million in salary over that time that's an average of under £34K a year. Seems about typical for a back-bencher to me. Almost anyone with a working life of 30+ years can be implied to be rolling in money if you add up their lifetime's entire gross salary and present it as a lump sum.

This whole stoking of disquiet and public outrage about certain MPs interesting expenses claims and now the level of their salaries is dangerous for our democracy. It's not uncommon to find people (often Labour supporters) who post stuff that directly or indirectly questions whether MPs 'deserve' any expenses or even be paid at all.

Once upon a time MPs were not paid. Which is one reason why Parliament sits such odd hours, so the active members who were lawyers could still practice their trade and make a living.

The bulk of the Commons however were members who were independently wealthy or the subsidised hirelings in all but name of the wealthy because no-one not wealthy or paid by someone who was wealthy could ever afford to be an MP. It was a major victory for the labour/socialist movement to break that stranglehold wealth had on power by gaining livable-on salaries and expenses for MPs.

I remember an interview on WatO a few years ago where the sister of a well-known London politician argued that MPs should not get any expenses, nor should public sector employees because "no-one in the private sector gets any expenses, they have to cover all their work costs out of their own salary". She went on to say trainees in any job should, morally, not be paid wages at all, but to be billed by their employer for the training because the training increased the lifetime earning power of the employee.

The other interviewee, someone bloke or other from one of the fringe 'libertarian'/anti-taxation campaigns the hard leftists at the BBC seem to love so much they book them for every imaginable occasion agreed, added that the people in this country have things far too easy and far too cheapy. After all, as he pointed out, it's 'ridiculous' that people can just walk around the country's streets willy-nilly, anywhere they want without it costing them a penny.

Quite an interesting view into the minds of right-wing ideologists and the BBC's news editors and interviewers c. 2012/3.

Edited for typos

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:00 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Leslie William Smith
‏@CustoperSmith
@itvnews @KarlTurnerMP When one is blind folded and in a rubber suit it is hard to tell what others do for a living.
Sorry.

I think that's going to be the best laugh of the day...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:06 am

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... -radcliffe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Council condemned for charging runners to use park

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:06 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Wes Streeting MP ‏@wesstreeting 2m2 minutes ago
The 'senior Labour MP' quoted here should be ashamed of themselves. 'MP being paid shocker'. This isn't 19th century http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... -revealed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.

That was such a "pyramid of piffle" from the Torygraph that I am prepared to doubt that, in this instance, the quoted "senior Labour MP" even exists.

But if they *do*, rarely has naming and shaming been deserved more.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:08 am

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-admin ... 1460488542" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama Administration to Forgive Billions in Student Debt for Disabled Americans

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:09 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Wes Streeting MP ‏@wesstreeting 2m2 minutes ago
The 'senior Labour MP' quoted here should be ashamed of themselves. 'MP being paid shocker'. This isn't 19th century http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... -revealed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.

Corbyn's doing what government says. Not p*****g his money away up against the wall, but putting it away for his old age so he's not a drain on the State.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:17 am

http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Old-disab ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Old and disabled Tandridge tenants 'must pay for all repairs'

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:22 am

Good morfternoon, low-achievers.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:22 am

citizenJA wrote:I don't like media breaking the law to get at peoples' information, reporting untruths, intimidating or threatening people.

I think that depends on who the person in question is and what that information is. Sometimes it is very much in the public interest for information about someone to come out whether the law allows for the methods used to get the information or not. Exposing Major's apparently rather hypocritical private life during his "back to basics" campaign might have put the final nail in his government's coffin, rather than him clinging to office until the last possible second.

So I'm in favour of the 'public interest' defence/mitigation available to journalists and editors. But the test should be fairly and rigorously applied and the press should not sit in judgement on itself. Self regulation far too often means very little regulation at all.

You points about (knowingly or recklessly) publishing untruths, intimidation and threats I agree with 100%. I'd add that in my opinion available penalties for so doing should be enforcable against the person, not just the company and be of the kind that would actually have some impact on wealthy editors and their much wealthier employers. Which means, if necessary, prison time. There's not much point in fining a multi-millionaire or billionaire whose financial affairs are of such byzantine complexity no-one even knows how much cash they have in the first place, or fining an editor or journalist who can be bunged some extra money afterwards by their employer as a "bonus".

And we should do what the US does. If you want to own a substantial chunk of the UK's media then you should be a UK citizen who normally lives in the UK and pay your taxes to the UK. You should also be financially transparent and follow not only the letter of UK tax legislation but the spirit of it as well.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:23 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon, low-achievers.

You'll have to give me a minute to get up off my knees.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:24 am

Ooh, someone's in a spot of bother.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:32 am

A moving article, although Tories wouldn't think so.

http://chrismorris.com/articles/better-than-eton" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:37 am

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/13 ... al_credit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Universal Credit at high risk of cyber-attack, fraud from the outset

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:38 am

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, told Sky News that he was not entirely convinced that newspapers did suppress the Whittingdale story simply because they concluded it was not in the public interest.

I would raise an eyebrow that that story did not run at the time, given the press’ form on this ... Obviously a number of different news organisations took a decision not to run a story. One would have expected the Independent would not have run that kind of story, however the Sun and the Mirror Group, with their form, well that’s why I would raise quizzical eyebrows as to their decision-making process.

If it was a reflection that the new climate after Leveson and under Ipso did mean that these kinds of stories with no legitimate public interest attached to them didn’t run that would be so much the better. But I am not entirely sure myself that that is the case. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited

Brackets

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:46 am

TR'sGhost wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Quite. It refers to the frankly ludicrous *story* that Corbyn has earned over 1m and has a relatively large pension pot. I should think he has after 30 years continuous employment as an MP. Positively frugal recompense in comparison with many of the second, third, fourth jobbers .... and those with property empires .... and those with large inheritances and investments.
How dare you guys, Telegraph?
Corbyn's pension savings?
Juxtaposed to the Tory government PM and his front bencher's outrageous wealth neither one did anything to earn and both take pains to prevent paying UK tax like they should?
If the 'senior Labour MP' isn't named, as far as I'm concerned, it's a fictional Labour MP.
And bad fiction too.
A quick bit of arithmetic tells me that if Corbyn had been an MP for 30 years and received a million in salary over that time that's an average of under £34K a year. Seems about typical for a back-bencher to me. Almost anyone with a working life of 30+ years can be implied to be rolling in money if you add up their lifetime's entire gross salary and present it as a lump sum.

This whole stoking of disquiet and public outrage about certain MPs interesting expenses claims and now the level of their salaries is dangerous for our democracy. It's not uncommon to find people (often Labour supporters) who post stuff that directly or indirectly questions whether MPs 'deserve' any expenses or even be paid at all.

Once upon a time MPs were not paid. Which is one reason why Parliament sits such odd hours, so the active members who were lawyers could still practice their trade and make a living.

The bulk of the Commons however were members who were independently wealthy or the subsidised hirelings in all but name of the wealthy because no-one not wealthy or paid by someone who was wealthy could ever afford to be an MP. It was a major victory for the labour/socialist movement to break that stranglehold wealth had on power by gaining livable-on salaries and expenses for MPs.

I remember an interview on WatO a few years ago where the sister of a well-known London politician argued that MPs should not get any expenses, nor should public sector employees because "no-one in the private sector gets any expenses, they have to cover all their work costs out of their own salary". She went on to say trainees in any job should, morally, not be paid wages at all, but to be billed by their employer for the training because the training increased the lifetime earning power of the employee.

The other interviewee, someone bloke or other from one of the fringe 'libertarian'/anti-taxation campaigns the hard leftists at the BBC seem to love so much they book them for every imaginable occasion agreed, added that the people in this country have things far too easy and far too cheapy. After all, as he pointed out, it's 'ridiculous' that people can just walk around the country's streets willy-nilly, anywhere they want without it costing them a penny.

Quite an interesting view into the minds of right-wing ideologists and the BBC's news editors and interviewers c. 2012/3.

Edited for typos

(my bold)

Holy smokes - people "have things too easy" and should actually want to get paid decent wages for work done (!)
Yes, interesting views into right-wing minds - I'd feel better if they were history and not current affairs.
However, reality needs dealing with.
Thank you, as always, your posts are an education.
I remember the Members of Parliament being unpaid once upon a time.
It's best they're paid and should be paid well enough to keep them in it though I'm with Ed Miliband and think MPs should only have the one job - being an MP.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 11:57 am

FWIW Some parks in the Peoples'Republic of China charge an entry fee.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:15 pm

HindleA wrote:FWIW Some parks in the Peoples'Republic of China charge an entry fee.

They don't let people know about the 'Panama Papers' either, according to the news I'm allowed to read.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:20 pm

http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/ ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tackling Britain’s misleading benefit sanctions statistics

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:22 pm

Cameron says that the primary work of HMRC is to ensure payment of taxes and the DWP to ensure claimants receive their benefits but neither are doing an adequate job. Nevertheless another statement by Cameron that masks reality goes unchallenged given the format of parliamentary questions.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:27 pm

I am beginning to think that someone posting on the politics thread has been reporting me and getting my posts modded.

Every day for weeks now, my posts have been removed. Only on that that thread, not on any others. I've emailed the G but no response.

Tin-foil-hattery aside - it used to be unusual for me to get stuff removed; I post in various threads, and it's only on AS's that this happens and at the moment it's virtually very time I post a comment. Very odd.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:28 pm

@cJA memory from '99 visit.I think it was Shanghai and nominal amount.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:36 pm

I don't know if it onset of middle age grumpiness,but the PM is incredibly thick.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:37 pm

How can you combat utter ignorance?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:39 pm

ephemerid wrote:I am beginning to think that someone posting on the politics thread has been reporting me and getting my posts modded.

Every day for weeks now, my posts have been removed. Only on that that thread, not on any others. I've emailed the G but no response.

Tin-foil-hattery aside - it used to be unusual for me to get stuff removed; I post in various threads, and it's only on AS's that this happens and at the moment it's virtually very time I post a comment. Very odd.

That is odd.
I don't understand that at all.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:39 pm

So the usual ~~crap~~ fun at PMQs.

Fish Pointer started by paying tribute to a "famous playwright" that he sounded like he had only heard of for the first time when Corbyn mentioned it a moment earlier. He certainly couldn't recall the name.

Then caught lying again when Corbyn quoted from the Red Book that HMRC funding was being cut from £3.3bn to £2.9bn

Angus Robertson made a good point about the 10:1 ratio of benefit fraud inspectors to tax fraud inspectors. Cameron both failed to acknowledge the figures or answer the question.

Interesting issue regarding DV in Pendle. Both answers given by twatface fail to acknowledge that it is both direct and indirect (via HB) cuts to local government funding which has led to the crisis in women's refuges. Made some spurious claim about additional funds being made available which should have been challenged but wasn't.

On the surface, £80 million over four years may seem like a lot of money. However, when you take into account the gaping hole left by year-on-year reductions in funding from local authorities, it is clear that this will not bridge the gaps nor bring back the services which have been wiped out in recent years.

(Sandra Horley CBE, chief executive of Refuge.)

All in all, very impressive. I'm sure the people of this country feel safe in his hands.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:43 pm

Corbyn apparently very good in PMQs today

Tory benches "more subdued" than usual, according to Isabel Hardman. Telling.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 12:45 pm

To my (lack of) surprise, the Corbyn event on the Wirral this Saturday has been moved to a larger venue. Looking forward to it nonetheless.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 1:00 pm

Cameron booed by Tory MPs ?
Anyone see that ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 1:04 pm

Awww, bless. Attractive young dominatrix falls head over heels for plain middle aged Tory.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 1:07 pm

Latest referendum poll (YouGov) has the remainers ahead by 40-38.

One little detail from the local elections - the National Front, now a miniscule neo-Nazi splinter group with (at most) a couple of hundred members nationwide, actually has more candidates standing than the BNP (8 to 7) How are the mighty fallen etc, and a reminder that not everything changes for the worse

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 13 Apr, 2016 1:14 pm

No 10 have said Cameron has full confidence in Whittingdale to carry out all his duties.