Ministers At The Trough Of Contempt

Brown, Gordon: Exit Strategy Expenses Background Revelations surrounding government ministers' take from the taxpayers is stomach churning and repugnant. It appears to be simply a method of increasing salary by exploiting the expenses system. If proven this would be illegal and tantamount to theft. It can never be interpreted as a 'perk'. These ministers that continually pontificate about the behaviours that British people should emulate have won themselves nothing but increased contempt. It grows daily as the Ministerial Revelations Keep Coming. The extent of the depth of the trough is quite staggering. Those who would wish to be regarded as pillars of society have descended deep into the pit. Bizarrely, the taxpayer keeps these individuals in their luxurious lifestyle so that more laws and controls can be imposed upon the taxpayer.

The same principle as the prisoner providing
the gaoler with the keys to his own cell

Unfortunately, any MP or minister who is honest and has integrity has been smeared by the trough dwellers and a political cat has been placed amongst the Westminster vultures, pigeons and doves. The deluded denial of doing anything wrong as everything is within the rules demonstrates the failed standards of these people and is an example that shows that arrogance and contrition can never co-exist in the same mindset. None of this is within the rules.

The moral argument has finally been revealed for what

it is and all is now lost, absolutely and completely

This all confirms only what many have believed for the long time measured in years. It has also been confirmed that these people only enter politics for the access to the till and certainly not any public service. So much time is squandered claiming expenses that little can be left for the job for which they are (allegedly) paid. Most are enjoying an unofficial doubling (or more) of salary. And they appear to be quite shameless in so doing. To listen to Shaun Woodward's attempted defense of his position (Newsnight, 11.05.09) was unbelievably obnoxious. Several times he stated "the system is rotten". This seems to imply that he is forced to do what the rotten system demands. Gut wrenching. Many others implicated in using and manipulating the rotten system that 'must be changed' (Hazel Blears interview) illustrates that these people are obviously NOT able to stop themselves milking the rotten system. They all appear to be forced to do what they do as though there was a gun levelled at their collective head. As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (27.06.2007 -> ?) one would imagine that debating and negotiating skills should be a great deal more sophisticated than they clearly are. The arguments promulgated were hopelessly pathetic.

• The indefensible part is the technically fraudulent action that manipulates the system to obvious personal advantage and benefit. This falls in that cynically indistinct area between tax avoidance and tax evasion. It should be obvious that tax evasion is moving the goalposts during the game to gain unfair advantage and tax avoidance is leaving the goalposts in their original position once the game has started and playing within the rules without then distorting or changing them. The game concerning second homes illustrates the concept.

• The system appears to allow a second home to be designated as NOT the main residence and in so doing recover expenses for its upkeep. Currently, up to £23,083 annually. To all intents and purposes the property can be the one used by an entire family with children attending a local school (effectively the main residence). Capital Gains Tax applies to a second home and its designation can be critical when selling property. The main residence does not attract CGT, but neither can the taxpayer be exploited to fund 'second homes'. An unjustified 'perk'. An indirect salary increase of up to £23,083 and on top of a solid gold pension: one of the best in the world. A very grubby gravy train. But pigs don't seem to care.

The dilemma of greed: flipping.

• These dealings involve public money for private gain. Some married couples [with different professional names: Andrew MacKay (Bracknell) and Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)] appear to claim twice for the same property.

• MacKay has quit, but what happens to Kirkbride?

• Woodward has enormous wealth and so that approach to an argument fails at inception. Woodward would have people believe that although it appears to be that entering politics is nothing to do with jumping onto the gravy train, this is difficult to conceive let alone believe. It maybe that power and control are implicated as these are good bed fellows with money. Yet that has a great poverty in morality.

David Cameron comes out fighting in an attempt to preempt and deflect the wrath of the potential Conservative-voting public (the rest do not matter) before more revelations are made clear to that public. When the fan gets hit with the s**t, it is too late and any public relations are at their lowest ever. Rather like ducking the shot after being hit. The outcome to this approach is that nothing prevented the take until after the fan got messed up. The fall-out covers the Tory party as a whole and nothing can now clear up such a mess. The till is allegedly being shut and all hands are cut off. An example of this greed has been provided by Alistair Darling and why tax avoidance is such a clever action to take. The selfish actions of that one has smothered any moral argument at birth. It's 'all within the rules', so it's OK to take what's 'on offer': the till's open and nobody's looking.

But everybody is looking
And taking copious notes

A simple test is watch the behaviour of someone who believes they are not being observed. The really trustworthy act in an identical manner whether they are being observed or not. The attitude comes from within and not the outward and manipulated appearance. The principled. Those who demonstrate integrity. But much like the finders keepers principle (oxymoron), the moral compass shows a heading to the doors of Hell. The issue remains that while the British people are led there, the wealthy control freak ministers will shunt off at the last moment to paradise. This creates a new definition of hypocrisy:

• To be a British government minister and do as I say and not ever as I do. This would involve sharing. The greedy trough dwellers don't do sharing.

Ironically, the best example of all has been illustrated:

Personal greed provides the key to the door of ruin

The reintroduction of Peter Mandelson into British politics has nothing to do with the British people. The man was fired from government and then welcomed back from the wilderness into government by the same government that fired him, visiting the training ground in Brussels en route. This is a demonstration of the contempt the alleged 'government' has for the 'view' of the British people. Brown was put into power, but not through any democratic process. There was no election, just dumping the man on the British people. This in itself was an act of complete contempt. Ignoring democracy in an alleged democratic society.

• The government is and has always been a disgrace and is just a laughing stock for the rest of the world to take its daily doses of amusement. There is no need for terrorists to attack Britain since the government is destroying the country all by itself

Alan Duncan oversees the (Conservative) party's policy on MP's expenses. A similar ethic to placing the lunatic in charge of the asylum as allegations would suggest. More incapability of NOT using the system to personal advantage. This entire farce will run for a long time and have a heavy toll on British politics. The standing of MPs and ministers is, quite rightly, now at an all-time low and it is doubtful that it will ever recover. Duncan heroically spreads the blame over all MPs and blames the system and so attempts to avoid any personal culpability.

This is absolutely contemptible

No one has ever forced an MP or minister to claim expenses or allowances. Recognised costs should be reimbursed. That's common sense, but all the other living costs absolutely not. And why should an MP benefit from taxpayer 'donations' to a moving target second home when selling up? This is clearly well outside the 'spirit of what is right' that Michael Martin pontificates about. He would attempt to gag any debate about MPs expenses and becomes more entrenched further in the bog. Hazel Blears comes in for special note: it has long been a maxim that negotiations with hostages and ransom payments are never undertaken. It would appear that inferred threats amount to such a situation occuring. The 'flipping' of a secondary home address after allowances and expenses have been successfully claimed does not suggest probity. Blears switched addresses three times in one year, but 'all within the rules' of a 'system that must be changed'.

Motorcycle News

• Who pays for the 'bike mentioned in the article?

MPs' Expenses Guy Fawkes, where are you?