'Giving evidence & swearing at the Treasury Select Committee' blog discussion

lemontart

mommame wrote: »

Right Martin, 2 questions.

1.When are they going to give you your knighthood.

2.Why didn't you tell them YOU are our peoples champion :A:A:A:A:A:A:A

knight hood ? more like saint hood as patron saint for consummers and moneysavers everywhere..................

pawnbroker_2

Personally I would like to see a committee of members of the public questioning ministers on expenditure.

For example I went through DFID projects on their web site and asked my MP numerous questions about them. I only took projects over £100 Million pounds.

In every case I can state that NO conditions were spelt out on what that project was to really achieve.

One such project was a "gift" of £820 MILLION to the World Bank. It was shown as being for next year but when I questioned the DFID under an FOI request it turns out they made a mistake and it was this year !!.

I also asked my MP exactly how much of that £820 MILLION was financed by borrowings, he was quite dismissive and did not answer, and the DFID in their reply had no idea and really didn't care.

I quote this as last week great discussions ensued on taking child benefit from high earners yet our MP's just waved through £820 MILLION.

In my view the DFID should be drastically cut or eliminated. We cannot justify borrowing money to give it away will nilly.

mommame

In the words of our esteemed MP's "hear hear"

Eric_Pisch

wow, one man can make a difference, if they listen :T

jamesd

Martin, I expect that the committee would welcome your expansion of your answers in written form where you believe that is useful.

Just consider the great economic benefits for small businesses that would come from the introduction of a fee: "Claim rejected by your bank? For only 30% plus claim fee we'll expertly handle your appeal. 80% of all our claimants win! Don't lose what you're entitled to, get our expert help now!"

There are some types of small businesses whose growth shouldn't be stimulated. This is one of them.

The Ombudsman charges banks a fee to stop frivolous rejections. it's not working, so perhaps it should be doubled or quadrupled for rejection where there's been a past decision that obviously matches the fact pattern, at the discretion of the Ombudsman service, to reflect the imposition on them of unnecessary costs and transferring of those costs to the providers who do act properly, via the industry levy. This is perfectly in keeping with the practices of the banks, who use charges to cause those who get things wrong to pay for free services for the other customers. Let those who abuse consumers and the FOS process be charged enough so that those who don't abuse the service get to have lower costs.

jamesd

Bloody is beyond my own personal taste in adjectives but many people wouldn't consider it to be swearing:

9:51:15: "People haven't got a bloody clue what it means" when talking about the confusion effect of information rather than education in infoboxes.

10:27:10 "Until the banks stop doing that they should absolutely - pause - I can't swear in here but they should get lost and that suggestion is deeply offensive" ... "until the banks get their house in order they need to bloody pay for it."

A lot more force behind the second use of the word than the first. Your passion was often showing. That's no bad thing. Good job!

ticktockhouse

Hi Martin,

I'm more of a lurker on the forums, but I just wanted to say well done, it makes me feel a lot safer as a consumer that someone is saying these things to the government in such frank terms.

Without wanting to sound too condescending, keep up the good work!

Jerry

Gordon_the_Moron

I'd have thought you were doing a bad job if you didn't reply with some sort of expletive to the suggestion of the ombudsman charging.

System

Good job Martin :beer:

The government should consider offering you a consultative position to the cabinet as "Consumer Champion" assuming you would want to accept such a role. Then, together with an elected MP having a title of something like "MP for Consumers" would give the "office" the teeth it needed to achieve results.