'Feeling empathy for Gordon' blog discussion

Old_Wrinkly

As an earlier post said, I am beginning to wish that a link to the MPs expenses site hadn't been given ...

I already knew from their words and actions that most of them couldn't be trusted, and were a sleazy bunch.
I had listened on radio & TV to reports of the worst of the expenses claims, and how many MPs were returning small amounts of money on particular things.
But I don't think that even then I realised just how corrupt the majority of them were, by consistently claiming for things they weren't entitled to, as "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred ...".

The MP for my area is standing down this time (as are many others) - the expenses issue no doubt being a factor.
But there are 650 of them with expense claims to look at, and I won't now rest until I find one honest MP.
Surely there must have been one!

PhylPho

Old_Wrinkly wrote: »

As an earlier post said, I am beginning to wish that a link to the MPs expenses site hadn't been given ...

I already knew from their words and actions that most of them couldn't be trusted, and were a sleazy bunch.
I had listened on radio & TV to reports of the worst of the expenses claims, and how many MPs were returning small amounts of money on particular things.
But I don't think that even then I realised just how corrupt the majority of them were, by consistently claiming for things they weren't entitled to, as "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred ...".

Oh, come on, Old Wrinkly! Didn't some expense claims fulfill a genuine need? For example:

On Friday morning this week, Labour is likely to be feeling just a little bit, er, distraught.

So Ed Balls -- now Schools Minister, but actually one of the chief architects of Brown's economic policies -- was surely being nothing other than far-sighted in hitting the taxpayer with the bill for a £7.99p book he couldn't afford to pay himself out of his £142,000 a year salary.

(And no. Before you ask: poor Balls couldn't even borrow the money from his wife, fellow economist Yvette Cooper -- by sheer coincidence, yet another Brown protege who is also a Labour Government Minister. And also earning £142,000 a year.)

Oh, and the title of the book that British taxpayers had to purchase and which now sits on the bookshelves of that cash-strapped Ministerial couple earning a taxpayer-funded £284,000 a year?

"Reasons To Be Cheerful."

Definitely, required reading on Friday morning in the Balls household, one would've thought.

Also meeting a legitimate need was the purchase by prospective Chancellor of The Exchequer George Osborne of two copies of a DVD featuring a speech given by some bloke in 2005. The subject of the speech was:

"Providing Value for Taxpayers' Money."

Though it could be argued that Osborne, son of a multi-millionaire and not short of the odd six zero bank account himself, should have paid the forty seven quid out of his own capacious wallet, nevertheless it's perfectly proper for a prospective Chancellor to know as much as possible about "Providing Value for Taxpayers' Money." Otherwise, what the heck's the point of Osborne being in charge of the UK economy?

This Friday, therefore, former Conservative Shadow Chancellor of The Exchequer George Osborne may be devoting some time to playing that DVD in order to reacquaint himself with that speech's absolute brilliance.

Then again though, Osborne might just wish to flip back through his own notes.

Seeing as how it was former Conservative Shadow Chancellor of The Exchequer George Osborne himself who gave the Providing Value for Taxpayers' Money speech that was the subject of the £47 DVD recordings bought for him by, er, taxpayers' money.

Really, I don't know why we voters make such a fuss about MPs' expenses.

What possible bearing can it have on the outcome of tomorrow's election???

CeceBauer

'Bigot' is a strong word to describe her but would it have been acceptable for her to have replaced the words 'Eastern Europeans' with 'Blacks' or 'Asians'? Of course it wouldn't - the press would have crucified her and rightly so. But why is one race allowed to be singled out - in this case Eastern Europeans - but not another? Brown was very stupid at making such a comment but we have all done the same at some point. :embarasse

Paul_Herring

CeceBauer wrote: »

'Bigot' is a strong word to describe her but would it have been acceptable for her to have replaced the words 'Eastern Europeans' with 'Blacks' or 'Asians'?

No, because they're describing different attributes of groups of people.

Of course it wouldn't - the press would have crucified her and rightly so. But why is one race allowed to be singled out - in this case Eastern Europeans - but not another?

"Eastern Europeans" are not a race.

rickbonar

Do I feel empathy for Gordon Brown?

Certainly not, the man is a megalomaniac and many agree with the Labour parliamentary candidate who recently claimed Gordon is the worst British Prime Minister ever. ( possibly world too)

I do feel empathy with Mrs Gillian Duffy

The only bigot (and two faced hypocrite) in that televised conversation with Mrs Duffy was Mr Brown.

Gordon Brown is the king of all Bigots...

what did he claim on expenses too... don't forget that!

Humph

I think the incident highlights the whole problem of the election campaign. The top politicians are not out there campaigning and meeting ordinary people. They are acting out an elaborate film script. Mrs Duffy did not stick to the script and this annoyed Gordon. What you see is what you get - a man and a party divourced from real people and problems.

rickbonar

rickbonar wrote: »

Do I feel empathy for Gordon Brown?

Certainly not, the man is a megalomaniac and many agree with the Labour parliamentary candidate who recently claimed Gordon is the worst British Prime Minister ever. ( possibly world too)

I do feel empathy with Mrs Gillian Duffy

The only bigot (and two faced hypocrite) in that televised conversation with Mrs Duffy was Mr Brown.

Gordon Brown is the king of all Bigots...

what did he claim on expenses too... don't forget that!

I do actually think there is a strong possibility that he was set up by someone; maybe someone on the inside ? Sue or Billy maybe?

PhylPho

rickbonar wrote: »

I do actually think there is a strong possibility that he was set up by someone; maybe someone on the inside ? Sue or Billy maybe?

The implication being that the Labour Government knows so much about everyone, everywhere, that a lady going about her shopping in Rochdale is immediately identifiable as someone who will ask a question that will embarrass Gordon Brown.

Surely, to subscribe to so daft a notion is to attribute to this Government a control of the public's mind that even out-does Orwell.

Then again though. I can see your point.

rickbonar

PhylPho wrote: »

The implication being that the Labour Government knows so much about everyone, everywhere, that a lady going about her shopping in Rochdale is immediately identifiable as someone who will ask a question that will embarrass Gordon Brown.

Surely, to subscribe to so daft a notion is to attribute to this Government a control of the public's mind that even out-does Orwell.

Then again though. I can see your point.

I should think virtually all non vetted members of the public randomly speaking with any politician will ask an embarrassing question at some point.

The "setup" would be the live microphone. NOT Mrs Duffy.

What you've got to ask is why didn't his aides make sure he wasn't wearing it when he got back in the car and why did they prompt him with "well what did she say".

Errata

Mrs Duffy was grabbed out of the crowd by the lackeys to talk to Brown because they thought she'd be an amenable reasonably articulate pensioner who would ask him interesting questions and make good telly. Which she was and did.