Eldorado Posted September 23, 2022 #1 Share Posted September 23, 2022 Liz Truss is facing questions over Foreign Office spending, including £1,841 at Norwich City's online shop during her time as foreign secretary. Labour's shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry queried the use of Foreign Office expense cards, up 45% on last year, in a letter to the department. -- In her letter, addressed to Foreign Office junior minister Gillian Keegan MP, Ms Thornberry wrote that it was difficult to understand why the department had spent money on items such as "high-end private catering; wellness and beauty treatments; extensive supplies from UK wineries; large amounts of home furnishing; and even £1,841 at the Norwich City club shop". She also asked how officials managed to spend £4,333 on "two trips to the hairdresser". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63006755 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acute Posted September 23, 2022 #2 Share Posted September 23, 2022 You gotta laugh, ennit. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 24, 2022 #3 Share Posted September 24, 2022 7 hours ago, acute said: You gotta laugh, ennit. Can you imagine how ugly you'd have to be to pay THAT MUCH on a couple of beauty shop visits? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted September 24, 2022 #4 Share Posted September 24, 2022 £4,333!!!!! That's almost as much as a year's rent for me ! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted September 24, 2022 #5 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Eldorado said: Liz Truss is facing questions over Foreign Office spending, including £1,841 at Norwich City's online shop during her time as foreign secretary. Labour's shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry queried the use of Foreign Office expense cards, up 45% on last year, in a letter to the department. -- In her letter, addressed to Foreign Office junior minister Gillian Keegan MP, Ms Thornberry wrote that it was difficult to understand why the department had spent money on items such as "high-end private catering; wellness and beauty treatments; extensive supplies from UK wineries; large amounts of home furnishing; and even £1,841 at the Norwich City club shop". She also asked how officials managed to spend £4,333 on "two trips to the hairdresser". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63006755 Ah yes, politicians and leaders must limit themselves to the same services that the working class do. Actually, I am against it. They should be paid properly instead of having to use department spending. Why is our PM not on £5 million a year? Cabinet ministers should be on £1 million, and all lower ministers given jobs should be on £500,000. And on top of all that give performance related bonuses. Edited September 24, 2022 by Cookie Monster 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted September 24, 2022 #6 Share Posted September 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said: Ah yes, politicians and leaders must limit themselves to the same services that the working class do. Well they work within the House of Commons, you know…. Commons, as in Commoners. 1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said: Actually, I am against it. They should be paid properly instead of having to use department spending. Why is our PM not on £5 million a year? Cabinet ministers should be on £1 million, and all lower ministers given jobs should be on £500,000. And on top of all that give performance related bonuses. Public Service should not be undertaken for the pursuit of money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted September 24, 2022 Author #7 Share Posted September 24, 2022 3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said: Ah yes, politicians and leaders must limit themselves to the same services that the working class do. I find it hard to understand how you can be ok with your servants helping themselves to your money. Why? They are benefits cheats, same as any welfare benefits cheat. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 24, 2022 #8 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Eldorado said: I find it hard to understand how you can be ok with your servants helping themselves to your money. Why? They are benefits cheats, same as any welfare benefits cheat. Human nature. Example, Soviet Union, when plebs became rulers. Edit to add: another example, how much "climate change czar" J.Kerry produced CO2 while attending/flying to various "climate change" venues? Or "climate change conscious" Hollywood schmucks burning fuel/producing CO2 like hell? Human nature. Edited September 24, 2022 by bmk1245 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.A.T.1961 Posted September 24, 2022 #9 Share Posted September 24, 2022 Some amount of expenses are allowed and then declared. Its another matter to decided what should be allowed, claimed for, and funded by tax payers. Although Emily Thornberry has form with expenses and probably considers herself to be an expert. Islington MP’s expense bill among highest in capital. New figures have revealed Islington South and Finsbury MP Emily Thornberry had the sixth highest expenses bill in the capital over the last Parliament. Our investigation, looking at thousands of MPs’ claims, has shown the senior Labour MP spent £717,673 from 2010 to 2015 for costs carrying out her parliamentary work - 15 per cent higher than the average for London’s 72 MPs. https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/local-council/islington-mp-s-expense-bill-among-highest-in-capital-but-3740524 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted September 24, 2022 Author #10 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said: New figures have revealed Islington South and Finsbury MP Emily Thornberry had the sixth highest expenses bill in the capital over the last Parliament. Our investigation, looking at thousands of MPs’ claims, has shown the senior Labour MP spent £717,673 from 2010 to 2015 for costs carrying out her parliamentary work - 15 per cent higher than the average for London’s 72 MPs. https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/local-council/islington-mp-s-expense-bill-among-highest-in-capital-but-3740524 Legitimate expenses or beauty treatments and wine? Edited September 24, 2022 by Eldorado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 24, 2022 #11 Share Posted September 24, 2022 29 minutes ago, Eldorado said: Legitimate expenses or beauty treatments and wine? What are legitimate expenses? Lets start from this. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.A.T.1961 Posted September 24, 2022 #12 Share Posted September 24, 2022 Just now, Eldorado said: Legitimate expenses or beauty treatments and wine? As those claiming for beauty treatments and wine are not subject to an investigation, after claiming and declaring, then they must be allowed under the current system? We might think, without knowing the details these costs are not reasonable and MP's could come to the same conclusion, it is within their power to set the rules on expenses. Having said that I dare say if Thornberry was asked about her expenses she would have a good reason for the hundreds of thousands of pounds claimed. Along with all other MP's. Making claims for MP's work is reasonable if justified, the question is what's justified or how long is a piece of string. Arguments could be made for a variety of different arrangements including scraping expenses altogether and paying MP's more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted September 24, 2022 #13 Share Posted September 24, 2022 Nobody ever calls it "trickle down" when people have to work 50 hours a week to support others who refuse to work 1 hour a week. Free everything was never so easy - see Calais for further details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted September 24, 2022 #14 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Grey Area said: Well they work within the House of Commons, you know…. Commons, as in Commoners. Public Service should not be undertaken for the pursuit of money. Our leaders need to be motivated, to enjoy their role, and look the part. What better way to motivate and encourage them to perform than with performance related pay: First Election (per year): PM = £5 million, Cabinet MP = £1 million, Ordinary MP = £500,000 1st Continuous Re-election (per year): x2 what they got when first elected. 2nd Continuous Re-election (per year): x5 what they got when first elected. Just to make it fair I also propose that if they lose their position after gaining less than 20% of votes from their area, or in the case of the PM winning their party win less than 20% of seats, we get to have a national referendum on executing them!!! Carrot and stick, carrot and stick lmao. Edited September 24, 2022 by Cookie Monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted September 24, 2022 #15 Share Posted September 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said: Our leaders need to be motivated, to enjoy their role, and look the part. What better way to motivate and encourage them to perform than with performance related pay: Getting elected is not a judgement of their performance as a leader. Why would the tax payer reward their leadership before they have even been the leader you propose to reward them for. As for motivation, I would suggest the financial perks that come from premiership are sufficient enough motivation, book deals, memoires, public appearances. Besides, seems to be plenty of a-holes motivated into politics. 1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said: we get to have a national referendum on executing them!!! I like this one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Walt' E. Kurtz Posted September 24, 2022 #16 Share Posted September 24, 2022 Title said "trips to the hairdresser" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted September 25, 2022 #17 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) Wow.... that's a whole box of cotton buds on the NHS. Or if NHS figures are to be believed, 4 false call outs for the ambulance service. Or 2 nights stay in a 5 star hotel for a would be asylum seeker. Edited September 25, 2022 by itsnotoutthere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 25, 2022 #18 Share Posted September 25, 2022 16 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said: Wow.... that's a whole box of cotton buds on the NHS. Or if NHS figures are to be believed, 4 false call outs for the ambulance service. Or 2 nights stay in a 5 star hotel for a would be asylum seeker. Cotton ain't cheap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted September 25, 2022 #19 Share Posted September 25, 2022 1 minute ago, bmk1245 said: Cotton ain't cheap Or asylum seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 25, 2022 #20 Share Posted September 25, 2022 12 hours ago, Cookie Monster said: Our leaders need to be motivated, to enjoy their role, and look the part. What better way to motivate and encourage them to perform than with performance related pay: First Election (per year): PM = £5 million, Cabinet MP = £1 million, Ordinary MP = £500,000 1st Continuous Re-election (per year): x2 what they got when first elected. 2nd Continuous Re-election (per year): x5 what they got when first elected. Just to make it fair I also propose that if they lose their position after gaining less than 20% of votes from their area, or in the case of the PM winning their party win less than 20% of seats, we get to have a national referendum on executing them!!! Carrot and stick, carrot and stick lmao. At some poin will be carrot or stick. Your choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 25, 2022 #21 Share Posted September 25, 2022 1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said: Or asylum seekers. Depends on how you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted September 25, 2022 #22 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said: Wow.... that's a whole box of cotton buds on the NHS. Or if NHS figures are to be believed, 4 false call outs for the ambulance service. Or 2 nights stay in a 5 star hotel for a would be asylum seeker. £200 fee for each ambulance, which can be waived with the hospital signing a form that says yes they had a valid reason to call one. No more lonely grannies calling up ambulances to get attention. Edited September 25, 2022 by Cookie Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted September 25, 2022 #23 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, bmk1245 said: Depends on how you see it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60249130 'Some 37,000 asylum seekers and Afghan refugees are living in UK hotels at a cost of £4.7m per day, revised Home Office figures show.' Edited September 25, 2022 by itsnotoutthere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted September 25, 2022 #24 Share Posted September 25, 2022 34 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60249130 'Some 37,000 asylum seekers and Afghan refugees are living in UK hotels at a cost of £4.7m per day, revised Home Office figures show.' I don`t understand why quicker decisions on deportation cannot be made. If they don`t have a legal application approved before coming here, deport. There are no wars going on in our area of the world so none of them can claim we are the nearest safe port. Therefore, only those of particular interest to us (ex-KBG, etc) or those who have already successfully applied under the brain drain should be allowed to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted September 25, 2022 #25 Share Posted September 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said: I don`t understand why quicker decisions on deportation cannot be made. If they don`t have a legal application approved before coming here, deport. There are no wars going on in our area of the world so none of them can claim we are the nearest safe port. Therefore, only those of particular interest to us (ex-KBG, etc) or those who have already successfully applied under the brain drain should be allowed to stay. One word: bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now