Ms Smith (AKA Muppet No.3) & "fair and reasonable" allowances

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Ms Smith in a time where some people are scraping around for pennies




has defended her use of MPs' allowances as "fair and reasonable".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was the "nature of the job" that MPs had to furnish and run two properties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7987102.stm


For anybody not sure on the rules of being an MP please read below.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament

Prepared pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 19th July 1995

Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest. (<<<< personally I love that line)

Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.


http://www.parliament.the-stationery...d/688/code.htm

Wookster

The pomp and arrogance of this bunch of pick pockets is just stunning.

I think they now have the attitude that they know the party is over and they are trying to milk as much as they can in the little time remaining.

mrposhman

What I can't stand is their arrogance!!

I've done nothing wrong, I've followed the rules.

So what, at the end of the day, can she say to peoples faces that she has spent as much on her sisters house, as we have on her family home?

What about the value of her house too? Will she be passing some of that back to us, surely we have paid for some of the equity and improvements made to the house and therefore should benefit form it?

She's reaping benefits from the taxpayer for her own personal gain and its ridicuours. Much like Hoon and Darling, how much do these 2 actually spend on their housing? A free house in London, a flat that a tenant lives in (tenant pays for) and a family home that the taxpayer pays for. What exactly do hoon and darling contribute to this?

At the end of the day the simplest way to deal with this is take the cost of housing prior to living in London, find out how much additional they will have to pay EXACTLY and refunding the difference. By just looking at one house it creates the ability to rip the people off.

I'm sure if Jacqui smith had to prove the costs she incurred at her sisters along with the costs incurred at her family home and supplied these together, the cost to the taxpayer would be far diminished.

Wookster

mrposhman wrote: »

I've done nothing wrong, I've followed the rules.

This attitude makes me SO angry.

I'm still waiting for Rochdale to pop along and explain why these pickpockets are different to the bankers.

shuze

mrposhman wrote: »

What I can't stand is their arrogance!!

I've done nothing wrong, I've followed the rules.

Ah yes, but we can vote her out at the next election (by choosing a slightly different bunch of muppets, oh dear).

"Democracy", wonderful isn't it?

Don't vote, it just encourages them...

shuze

fatpig wrote: »

I wish I lived in her constituency so I could vote the fat pig out at the next election.

No problem, just pretend you live there anyway, and claim a postal vote.

bo_drinker

She'll be gone in the next reshuffle, i t y f she will be the first to go. The damage is done now and more pigs are coming to light.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Wookster wrote: »

This attitude makes me SO angry.

I'm still waiting for Rochdale to pop along and explain why these pickpockets are different to the bankers.

They are not pickpockets, they are nothing more than those who steal to pay for luxury yachts by false accounting whilst working for a charity that funds people with a terminal illness.

They are the lowest of the low, they are scum.

That £10 (if it was a one off but I am yet to know that because the media have yet to ask the obvious question) could have been used for vital stuff not someones personal !!!!!! collection.


Let alone the tens of thousands diverted (to her sister of course PS did her sister pay tax on the income? I doubt it...) to pay for her 2nd room uummmmmmm home!

ILW

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

That £10 (if it was a one off but I am yet to know that because the media have yet to ask the obvious question) could have been used for vital stuff not someones personal !!!!!! collection.


Let alone the tens of thousands diverted (to her sister of course PS did her sister pay tax on the income? I doubt it...) to pay for her 2nd room uummmmmmm home!

The wrist?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ILW wrote: »

The wrist?

lol. You so know its been going on for years!!

ILW

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

lol. You so know its been going on for years!!

Merchant Bankers?