Options
Boris - he jests surely
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26933268
Now if this was the Labour party involved:
a) Someone would be in the dock.
b) Dear old mad Boris would be quiet as a mouse.
It is wrong for ALL MP's to fiddle their expenses but the response to it should be fair and even handed. This is looking more and more like a whitewash. Maybe there are other Tories worried they may be looked at a bit too closely.
Now if this was the Labour party involved:
a) Someone would be in the dock.
b) Dear old mad Boris would be quiet as a mouse.
It is wrong for ALL MP's to fiddle their expenses but the response to it should be fair and even handed. This is looking more and more like a whitewash. Maybe there are other Tories worried they may be looked at a bit too closely.
0
Comments
what evidence do you have that labour politicians are treated disproportionately and unfairly?
It also claims that Johnson suggested that the role of the standards committee should be reduced.... Considering that the committee consists of five Conservative MPs, four Labour MPs, one Lib Dem MP and three members of the public.... I wonder which members he thinks should go.
I think he was suggesting an independent body should have the final say not a committee of MPs.
According to Sky News the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards found she should repay £45.000 but was over-ruled by the Standards Committee
http://news.sky.com/story/1238837/minister-takes-aim-at-miller-amid-growing-row
He's possibly right.
I know, Johnson appears to be suggesting the former should have more say than the latter who are MPs. ;-)
He was and I agree with him.
I agree with him, and The Telegraph appears to agree as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10743455/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-MPs-conspired-to-save-Culture-Secretary.html
I'm not really sure that Cameron is doing himself any favours by saying that “people should leave it at that”, as clearly there are many people, even Tories, who disagree.
Interpreted as .. the public of course are too stupid to understand
so were not going to tell you
The number in prison compared to the number of Tories who are guilty of the same crime but have avoided Inspector Knacker. Daft question if you don't mind me saying as it is widely reported how MP's were dealt with.l
So it's what you reckon and that's all the proof you need for there to be a conspiracy?
Well that poster is right. If this wasn't a politician they'd be lucky to not be arrested for fraud.
You can't overclaim £45k and just put it down to an oversight. But you can if you're a politician.
And if politicians are allowed to have their affairs policed by other politicians, it's not difficult to see how there's a conflict of interests there.
As there was recently with print media when it came to light some of the practices which had been going on.
In the opening post the FM seems convinced there is a conspiracy with MPs of different parties being treated differently, the post I quoted also ploughs those furrows. They didn't post anything about MPs vs normal people so I wasn't commenting on that.
There is a certain logic to that, i.e. if something doesn't work, then trim it down.
I suspect Boris would argue that greed is just a natural aspect of human nature, and that the odd fiddle is inevitable.
Most people wouldn’t get away with saying that, but by cracking his boyish smile with that Johnson twinkle in his eye, Boris could make it sound quite natural.
I don't think he gets away with it as much as he thinks he does.
Labour are looking at political point scoring - there own history on this subject is not exactly whiter than white, Conservative MPs are looking at what it looks like in public opinion and there chances of re-election and the press want revenge on the person responsible for them being regulated.
The point that MPs should not regulate their expenses is of course well made - they should be where ever possible be the same as every other person in the country. No more than papers should regulate themselves.
Nor should the financial system be regulated by people with such a vested interest in not properly regulating financial system. Don't want to upset their friends, family and future employers.
We hang petty thieves but appoint big thieves to high office.
Okay, I admit that I was lazy and didn't read until the end of his post. So fair point about the differentiation between parties.
I think my own point still stands though, which speaks of politicians irrelevant to what party they belong.
Look it up yourself and then come back and tell me I am wrong. In addition to that I would also like to ask if you have been domiciled under a very large granite slab for the last few years?
'tis true they are not without blame in this matter but then neither are the Tories. As for point scoring there has been a whole lot of that directed towards the Labour party by the right. My point was and is that there should be an equal playing field. I also concur with the idea that MP's should not police themselves. It is a recipe for such things to occur.
No, you look for proof and post it. You made the allegation you back it up.
You are speculating based on your own prejudices, you have done this by counting up the number of MPs that were successfully prosecuted and imagining that there is a pattern and that this pattern somehow proves something. This isn't proof.
If we follow your logic it's the LibDems that are actually behind this imagined conspiracy because none of their MPs went to prison and they are in government at the moment, maybe they're in cahoots with the Celtic parties because none of their members went to prison either. *Twilight Zone music*