I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
Come on @Doubleme this is your chance to impress don't let the forum down...
Fortunately he is currently embroiled with @TheEdge949 on the food parcels. That could end up a long thread. Although I believe that food parcels went out of the window some time ago.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
While we all wait for the Poomeister, this sort of thing is an example of just how difficult it can be to formulate a coherent tax collection policy.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
hi unfortunately it is very difficult to get winni the pooh or spongebob in violent situations. I have managed this a few times but it is incredibly difficult.
So @lucy4 I am sorry to disappoint but it wont be possible to get a winni picture for this one.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
While we all wait for the Poomeister, this sort of thing is an example of just how difficult it can be to formulate a coherent tax collection policy.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
You can argue as much as you want. The purpose of the rule change was clear. The opinions voiced in both the articles that you posted were that he was in the wrong.
I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
a long time ago (over a decade ago now) on a date in Bournemouth gardens we witnessed a large group of individuals kicking the living **** of a young lad. It was very far from a fair fight was at least ten on one, The police came to the scene and the young lad was badly shaken.
Immediate thoughts would be to assume the young lad was the victim and the large crowd clearly in the wrong. Now that may well be the case I never did find out the circumstances or reasons as to why the assault happened. It is hypothetically possible that the young lad could have done something utterly outrageous which might fully justify the assault.
why did he do this do we know the provocation behind this attack? without knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment.
While we all wait for the Poomeister, this sort of thing is an example of just how difficult it can be to formulate a coherent tax collection policy.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
You can argue as much as you want. The purpose of the rule change was clear. The opinions voiced in both the articles that you posted were that he was in the wrong.
I don't mean to be rude.
Your opinion really doesn't count on this. Any more than mine does.
You can bang on all you like about what you think the position should be. As can 2 rather strange MPs. And say I am "ridiculous" for telling you what the position actually is. What both Parliament voted for, and what the relevant Authority believes is correct. As opposed to what you think it should be.
Ooh. I know. Let's appoint a "Minister for Common Sense". Someone to stop public waste. She will know the way forward...
While we all wait for the Poomeister, this sort of thing is an example of just how difficult it can be to formulate a coherent tax collection policy.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
You can argue as much as you want. The purpose of the rule change was clear. The opinions voiced in both the articles that you posted were that he was in the wrong.
I don't mean to be rude.
Your opinion really doesn't count on this. Any more than mine does.
You can bang on all you like about what you think the position should be. As can 2 rather strange MPs. And say I am "ridiculous" for telling you what the position actually is. What both Parliament voted for, and what the relevant Authority believes is correct. As opposed to what you think it should be.
Ooh. I know. Let's appoint a "Minister for Common Sense". Someone to stop public waste. She will know the way forward...
Whether it counts or not, I am allowed to have one. I thought that your car example was ridiculous, and not at all relevant. I haver never in my whole life ever known, or heard of anyone that rents, or has rented a car from a private individual. You have posted 3 articles, all of which lean towards the opinion that this practice is wrong.
While we all wait for the Poomeister, this sort of thing is an example of just how difficult it can be to formulate a coherent tax collection policy.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
You can argue as much as you want. The purpose of the rule change was clear. The opinions voiced in both the articles that you posted were that he was in the wrong.
I don't mean to be rude.
Your opinion really doesn't count on this. Any more than mine does.
You can bang on all you like about what you think the position should be. As can 2 rather strange MPs. And say I am "ridiculous" for telling you what the position actually is. What both Parliament voted for, and what the relevant Authority believes is correct. As opposed to what you think it should be.
Ooh. I know. Let's appoint a "Minister for Common Sense". Someone to stop public waste. She will know the way forward...
'Rank hypocrisy!' Labour's campaign co-ordinator claimed £40,000 expenses to rent house NEXT DOOR
Former chairman of the committee on standards in public life Sir Alistair Graham said the living arrangements were not in the "spirit" of expenses rules.
He told the Telegraph: "All MPs have a strong personal responsibility to ensure that they keep to the minimum the amount that they need to claim from public funds."
He also said IPSA should review the rules around expenses for constituency homes to "see what was in the best public interest".
Tory MP Gary Sambrook accused McFadden of "rank hypocrisy", pointing to accusations levelled at the Tories by Labour over "lavish spending" of public money.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Whenever opinion relates to personal views, it is open to debate.
So-for example-if you believe that the current Rules should be reviewed-you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. FWIW I agree. all Rules like this should be periodically reviewed.
Where we fundamentally disagree is whether current MPs are doing anything wrong-whether that is legally or "morally" (love the idea that Journalists should be the arbiter of Morality).
I disagree that MPs should be prevented from claiming at least 1 of Mortgage/Rent when there is a need for 2 homes to carry out their work. And, while the various papers point their fingers at just one Party, they are doing so purely for political purposes. Likewise, in news that should surprise absolutely nobody, a former head of something believes he could do the job better than the person currently doing his old job.
It would be impossible to force all MPs to pay for their 2nd homes. But it would certainly not be impossible to change the Rules, so that the Taxpayer gets better value for money. New Rules could include:-
1. All people claiming for Housing costs must have being an MP as their main source of paid employment.
I gave the example of Sir Geoffrey Cox before. I believe it is the case that every year he earns rather more as a Barrister than as an MP. On occasion, 10 times more. He has also claimed for the cost of renting a London apartment from the taxpayer. He is doing nothing "wrong" under current rules. But, surely, his main reason for needing a London base is not to be an MP. Same for various people moonlighting at GB News
2. There should be a minimum number of days sitting in Parliament to qualify
At present, there is nothing to stop someone claiming this expense without ever attending Parliament. To use Sinn Fein as an example. Their MPs never attend. And, to be fair to them, they currently claim neither salary or housing costs. Point is, they could under current rules
3. The area that qualifies as "commutable" (thus barring such claims) should be expanded
There was a time when MPs were expected to regularly attend Parliament until Stupid o'clock. Which is why it is only London MPs who are restricted in what they can claim. That does not happen now. So what is "commutable" is more than it once was. As an example, the former MP for Chelmsford was able to claim large amounts. Whereas thousands of commuters do that journey every day. It takes less than an hour.
Simple answer to the scandalous amount of money MP’s claim in mortgage/rent to be in parliament when they can be ar#ed . Build a block of bed-sits for MP’s use when they are voted in. Or…. Put them up in a Barge in the Thames, it’s claimed to be good enough for migrants.
I’m guessing 10 or 11 Downing St isn’t claimed for in expenses? ( unless you need gold wallpaper or curtains) Similar to staying in a Premier inn instead of The Ritz.
Comments
@lucy4
That could end up a long thread.
Although I believe that food parcels went out of the window some time ago.
Rags like the Telegraph tell half-truths for their story.
I'm sure a lot of people share the opinion of @HAYSIE in relation to facilitating profits via a property portfolio. However, with the greatest of respect, that was not the intention of Parliament or the relevant authority.
People who have a 2nd home to carry out Westminster or Constituency work can claim all sorts of expenses in relation to that. Probably everything you could think of-with the one exception of Mortgage Interest.
There is no job that fines someone for having a property they rent out. All sorts of problems, for example:-
1. Someone wants to stand for Parliament. But he owns 2 properties-the London one is in Westminster, and he rents it out for £10,000 per month. Want him to pay to be an MP?
2. People underestimate the things already in place for (legal) tax avoidance. For example, Rees-Mogg is 1 of many MPs who have investments in a Blind Trust, which has separate legal personality. Easy to Rent from the Trust. Or the House you gifted to your Partner.
A lot of Senior Tories have been letting/renting in this way who were the ones who changed the Rules. People like Sir Geoffrey Cox (the former Attorney General, who earns rather a lot moonlighting as a Barrister while being an MP), James Cleverly and Ben Wallace.
So @lucy4 I am sorry to disappoint but it wont be possible to get a winni picture for this one.
0 holes, round cancelled due to torrential rain.
Bad Play stopped Light
You must have seen me (try to) play...
The purpose of the rule change was clear.
The opinions voiced in both the articles that you posted were that he was in the wrong.
Immediate thoughts would be to assume the young lad was the victim and the large crowd clearly in the wrong. Now that may well be the case I never did find out the circumstances or reasons as to why the assault happened. It is hypothetically possible that the young lad could have done something utterly outrageous which might fully justify the assault.
why did he do this do we know the provocation behind this attack? without knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment.
@lucy4
Glad it was not just me that thought there was a bit of this involved...
Your opinion really doesn't count on this. Any more than mine does.
You can bang on all you like about what you think the position should be. As can 2 rather strange MPs. And say I am "ridiculous" for telling you what the position actually is. What both Parliament voted for, and what the relevant Authority believes is correct. As opposed to what you think it should be.
Ooh. I know. Let's appoint a "Minister for Common Sense". Someone to stop public waste. She will know the way forward...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/21/esther-mcvey-expenses-flat-philip-davies
I thought that your car example was ridiculous, and not at all relevant.
I haver never in my whole life ever known, or heard of anyone that rents, or has rented a car from a private individual.
You have posted 3 articles, all of which lean towards the opinion that this practice is wrong.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/top-labour-chief-bizarrely-claimed-40k-taxpayers-money-to-rent-house-next-door/ar-BB1mvZqx?ocid=BingNewsSerp
'Rank hypocrisy!' Labour's campaign co-ordinator claimed £40,000 expenses to rent house NEXT DOOR
Former chairman of the committee on standards in public life Sir Alistair Graham said the living arrangements were not in the "spirit" of expenses rules.
He told the Telegraph: "All MPs have a strong personal responsibility to ensure that they keep to the minimum the amount that they need to claim from public funds."
He also said IPSA should review the rules around expenses for constituency homes to "see what was in the best public interest".
Tory MP Gary Sambrook accused McFadden of "rank hypocrisy", pointing to accusations levelled at the Tories by Labour over "lavish spending" of public money.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rank-hypocrisy-labours-campaign-co-ordinator-claimed-40000-expenses-to-rent-house-next-door/ar-BB1muyVS?ocid=BingNewsSerp
So-for example-if you believe that the current Rules should be reviewed-you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. FWIW I agree. all Rules like this should be periodically reviewed.
Where we fundamentally disagree is whether current MPs are doing anything wrong-whether that is legally or "morally" (love the idea that Journalists should be the arbiter of Morality).
I disagree that MPs should be prevented from claiming at least 1 of Mortgage/Rent when there is a need for 2 homes to carry out their work. And, while the various papers point their fingers at just one Party, they are doing so purely for political purposes. Likewise, in news that should surprise absolutely nobody, a former head of something believes he could do the job better than the person currently doing his old job.
It would be impossible to force all MPs to pay for their 2nd homes. But it would certainly not be impossible to change the Rules, so that the Taxpayer gets better value for money. New Rules could include:-
1. All people claiming for Housing costs must have being an MP as their main source of paid employment.
I gave the example of Sir Geoffrey Cox before. I believe it is the case that every year he earns rather more as a Barrister than as an MP. On occasion, 10 times more. He has also claimed for the cost of renting a London apartment from the taxpayer. He is doing nothing "wrong" under current rules. But, surely, his main reason for needing a London base is not to be an MP. Same for various people moonlighting at GB News
2. There should be a minimum number of days sitting in Parliament to qualify
At present, there is nothing to stop someone claiming this expense without ever attending Parliament. To use Sinn Fein as an example. Their MPs never attend. And, to be fair to them, they currently claim neither salary or housing costs. Point is, they could under current rules
3. The area that qualifies as "commutable" (thus barring such claims) should be expanded
There was a time when MPs were expected to regularly attend Parliament until Stupid o'clock. Which is why it is only London MPs who are restricted in what they can claim. That does not happen now. So what is "commutable" is more than it once was. As an example, the former MP for Chelmsford was able to claim large amounts. Whereas thousands of commuters do that journey every day. It takes less than an hour.
Build a block of bed-sits for MP’s use when they are voted in.
Or…. Put them up in a Barge in the Thames, it’s claimed to be good enough for migrants.
I’m guessing 10 or 11 Downing St isn’t claimed for in expenses? ( unless you need gold wallpaper or curtains)
Similar to staying in a Premier inn instead of The Ritz.