The Lib-Lab-Con is stealing from you and your family and from families yet to come. Remember this at the ballot box in May 2015 and retaliate by clearing out these parasites.
The Lib-Lab-Con is stealing from you and your family and from families yet to come. Remember this at the ballot box in May 2015 and retaliate by clearing out these parasites.
Lets take a look at the rap sheet of the parasites in power: The Expenses Scandal 2009. Had we the public done the same we would have been imprisoned for theft, fraud, and tax evasion. Welcome to the two tier system where the parasites are by any objective measure evidently above the law.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT: “PARASITE: A creature which obtains food and physical protection from a host which never benefits from its presence.” (Chambers English Dictionary)
House of Commons authorities have destroyed all evidence of MPs’ expenses claims prior to 2010, meaning end of official investigations into scandal.
MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims, the Telegraph can reveal.
John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs’ expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded.
Members of the public who have written to Kathryn Hudson, the standards watchdog, to raise concerns about their MP’s claims have been told there can be no investigation due to lack of evidence.
Under the House of Commons’ “Authorised Records Disposal Practice”, which is overseen by Mr Bercow’s committee, records of MPs’ expenses claims are destroyed after three years. The move is necessary to comply with data protection laws, a Commons spokesman said.
However, under that same set of guidelines, the pay, discipline and sickness records of Commons staff are kept until their 100th birthday. Health and safety records are kept for up to 40 years, while thousands of other classes of official documents on the day-to-day running of the House are stored indefinitely in the Parliamentary Archive.
Yet again the “party of the worker” doesn’t practice what it preaches. But then, what else should we expect from parasites? Here is New Labour’s last tax evasion: http://eotp.org/tag/tax-evasion/
A property company run by the Labour Party has paid no tax in eight years, despite earning millions of pounds in rental revenues, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.
Labour Party Properties Limited (LPPL), which owns a £6.3m portfolio of properties, has paid no corporation tax since 2003.
In those eight years the company has received a total of £8.7m in rents but declared losses of £279,000.
A Labour Party spokesman said the firm had done nothing to intentionally cut its tax bill.
Ed Miliband has repeatedly accused multi-national companies such as Starbucks and Google of failing to pay their full share of tax.
The latest accounts show LPPL, which is wholly owned by the Labour Party and whose directors include Iain McNicol, the Labour Party general secretary, received £1,189,000 in rent from 21 properties in 2011. Around forty per cent of the portfolio, worth £2.5m, is rented on the open market, while the other buildings are leased to local parties as offices and social clubs.
Taxpayers face forking out almost £90,000 in “golden goodbyes” to reject ministers today.
Tories and Liberal Democrats axed in the recent reshuffle can pocket up to £17,000 apiece tax free on what has been dubbed Money Monday in Whitehall.
Conservative Richard Benyon – the richest MP in the Commons, who stands to inherit £110million – is in line for more than £5,000 of public money.
Officials say that the severance pay is a legal entitlement but Ireland is changing the law to end the cash for cast-offs scheme there as part of austerity measures.
Campaigning MP John Mann said that the UK should follow suit.
Labour’s Mr Mann said: “There is no basis whatsoever for paying this in Britain. We should follow their lead.
“These people are still getting generous MPs’ pay. It is an insult to people struggling across the country that they get a golden handshake.”
All departing ministers are entitled to three months pay if they do not get another job within three weeks.
That means that those dumped in the last reshuffle can claim the cash from today.
Former Cabinet minister Michael Moore is set to pocket £17,042 after he was sacked as Scotland Secretary.
Fellow Lib Dem Jeremy Browne is among five ex-Ministers of State who are in line for £8,086 after being axed.
Conservative Simon Burns can also pocket the huge sum even though he quit to stand unsuccessfully for Deputy Commons Speaker.
Benyon is one of three junior ministers who are entitled to £5,760 each. Three of his fellow Tories get £4,646 after leaving the whips office. Two of them, John Randall and Greg Knight, have also received knighthoods.
In all, taxpayers face paying out £88,687 to ex-ministers.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “Severance pay is widely used across both private and public sectors. Ministerial severance pay has been required under legislation since 1991.”
But low tax pressure group the TaxPayers’ Alliance echoed John Mann’s call for the payments to be axed.
Spokesman Jonathan Isaby said: “When money is so tight and David Cameron talks about wanting to reduce the cost of politics, it beggars belief that these golden goodbyes are still being doled out to ex-ministers.
“After all, having left these posts, they will all still get the MPs’ annual salary of more than £66,000.
“MPs taking on a ministerial role know full well that it’s no job for life and ought to be planning their finances accordingly.
“Taxpayers will be especially baffled that even those who resigned of their own accord still get these tax-free payments worth thousands: which of their constituents working in the private sector would get a bumper payday for quitting their job?”
For background information on “press regulation”/State control of media, see The Common Purpose – State Control of the Press by Appointment from the free press.
A Tory MP and landlord making a fortune from housing benefit payments to the poor has called for changes to the Freedom of Information laws used by the Mirror to expose him .
Richard Benyon, the richest MP in a Commons packed with millionaires, wants the rules altered to prevent stories which might embarrass politicians being dug up by journalists.
He made nearly £120,000 in housing benefit from just one council last year through his inherited £110m family estate, we revealed last week.
But Mr Benyon has now called for changes to FOI laws stating “we need to make sure that the Act is there for what it is designed to do” rather than “raking up political ammunition”.
He also complained in a blog post for the rightwing website conservativehome.com that this newspaper used a “picture of me looking as posh as possible”.
The Mirror’s investigation with the GMB union revealed a string of politicians and political donors raking in housing benefit along with the Crown Estates, which supports the Queen, and Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall.
Fraud is fraud but only to the public. If you are an M.P. the criminal, corrupt and decadent System allows you to claim that you “made a mistake” and thus avoid prison. Clearly, people, there is a two-tier justice system –but still the fools keep voting for it. It just never ends, does it Expenses Scandal 2009. By any objective measures this regime is riddled with criminals and parasites.
Culture Secretary to be censured for abusing parliamentary expenses system after overclaiming for her mortgage and making £1m profit on sale.
The Culture Secretary abused the Parliamentary expenses system by over-claiming for her mortgage and then failing to fully co-operate with an investigation into her conduct, The Telegraph can disclose.
Maria Miller, the Culture secretary, is set to have to repay up to £5,000 and be censured for her claims – following an official Parliamentary inquiry which is expected to report as soon as this week.
It can also be disclosed that Mrs Miller has recently sold the south London house at the centre of the scandal for a profit of more than £1million.
The Cabinet minister, who has previously been supported by David Cameron, is expected to come under intense pressure to resign when the results of the official inquiry are made public.
The Prime Minister will be loathed to lose the state-school educated female member of his Government but any minister found to have abused the Parliamentary expenses system is likely to be seen as a major electoral liability.
One Conservative source said: “We simply cannot have a member of the Cabinet found to have abused the expenses system in any way this close to vital elections.”
Parliamentary authorities first launched an inquiry into Mrs Miller’s claims more than a year ago following an investigation by The Telegraph.
She was exposed after claiming more than £90,000 over four years for a second home where her parents lived in South London – rather than submitting claims for cottages she rented in her Basingstoke constituency.
The Parliamentary Commissioner is understood to have concluded that the arrangement did not lead to Mrs Miller benefiting financially. However, the Commissioner is unlikely to have been aware of the seven-figure profit made in recent weeks by the minister.
Mr and Mrs Miller sold the large house in Wimbledon for £1.47 million on Valentine’s Day of this year. They originally bought the house for £234,000 – which means the house value increased by £1,236,000.
Between 2005 and 2009, she claimed £90,718, which was only £115 less than the total amount she could have claimed. Although the house only cost £234,000 in 1995, the Millers took out a large mortgage against the house – and claimed the interest on the mortgage from the taxpayer.
In November 2007, they increased the mortgage from £525,000 to £575,000. The rules state that MPs could only increase their mortgages to pay the costs of necessary improvements – and that these should be signed off with the parliamentary authorities.
The Parliamentary inquiry discovered that Mrs Miller over-claimed for her mortgage and so should repay around £5,000 to the expenses watchdog.
The over-payment is understood to have occurred because Mrs Miller did not adjust her claims downward claims for mortgage as interest rates fell during the period under investigation.
The Telegraph also understands that the MPs want Mrs Miller to apologise to Parliament for not co-operating in a “timely manner” with the Commissioner.
MPs who sit on the standards committee are thought to be waiting for more financial information to consider at their next meeting on Tuesday before finalising the penalty to be imposed on Mrs Miller.
The MPs are frustrated that they have had to wait for months for basic financial details about the amount of money she over-claimed.
The Parliamentary report is understood to contain a memorandum which details the various attempts made by investigators seeking Mrs Miller’s mortgage details.
One source said: “If she had just said sorry she would be in a much stronger position. It will be a question of embarrassment and if she showed the best judgment.
In any other profession, the three errant MPs would have been shown the door.
A few weeks ago, James Arbuthnot, after a long and almost pointless career, announced that he was standing down as a Conservative MP. Mr Arbuthnot, whose final position was as chairman of the backbench defence committee, gave an interview which seemed to suggest that he was now hoping to find jobs in the defence business. He could not resist one final, parting bleat: “The constant assumption that everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook, gets very debilitating after a bit.”
Mr Arbuthnot, whose expenses claim as revealed in the Telegraph included a bill for work on the family swimming pool, money he later repaid, was voicing a characteristic complaint among members of the political class. They are convinced that they are underpaid, under-appreciated and asked to uphold standards that would never be expected from an ordinary person.
This view needs challenging as urgently as ever. Five years after the expenses investigation revealed evidence of criminality, fraud, cheating and greed among a substantial minority of MPs, there is still a problem. I only have space here to look at three examples, one from each main political party, each exposing the way that Parliament tolerates disgraceful conduct that would not be allowed in any other walk of life.
The first involves Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk, who head-butted a Conservative MP and caused damage and mayhem in the Strangers Bar of the House of Commons. At a later date he wrestled two policemen to the ground during a karaoke night at the Sports and Social Bar. There was another episode in an airport, but that is a complicated story and need not detain us here.
The second concerns the Conservative Patrick Mercer, who was exposed by BBC Panorama and the Telegraph for accepting £4,000 (by a reporter pretending to represent the Fiji government) to ask parliamentary questions.
The third case is the most topical: the Lib Dem Mike Hancock, who has been accused of making a series of inappropriate advances towards a female constituent suffering from mental health problems.
According to an internal Lib Dem report carried out by a QC, and leaked to the Guido Fawkes website, the alleged victim provided “compelling prima facie evidence of serious and unwelcome sexual behaviour by Mr Hancock”.
There are grounds for sympathy for all three MPs. Colonel Mercer will always merit great respect as a soldier who carried out nine tours of duty in Northern Ireland, ending up as commanding officer of his regiment, the Sherwood Foresters. Eric Joyce, an admirable politician in his lucid moments, clearly suffers from a serious drink problem. There but for the grace of God go many of us. The allegations against Mr Hancock are very disturbing, but he denies them, and they have not been proved. I have been told that he is a conscientious local MP.
Nevertheless it is extraordinary that any of them remain in their jobs. MPs often demand more money and expenses with the insistence that they occupy a serious and responsible position in society comparable to senior civil servants, headmasters, GPs or high-ranking members of the Armed Forces.
Yet it is quite inconceivable that Joyce, Hancock or Mercer would have survived for a single second had they occupied a position in a serious profession. A drink-drive conviction is career death in the Army, let alone the kind of drunken brawl that is Mr Joyce’s speciality. A doctor with charges of the gravity being levelled against Mr Hancock, particularly when given credibility by an internal investigation, would surely not be allowed to carry on holding surgeries. Parliament, however, has very low standards.
Messrs Joyce, Hancock and Mercer carry on collecting their salaries of approximately £66,000 a year, not to mention expenses that, according to one estimate, will total, collectively, around £500,000 (enough to pay the annual salary for more than 20 nurses) by the time they finally quit at the next election. The evidence suggests that, in return, they don’t carry out much work.
Eric Joyce has voted 97 times in 489 divisions (19.8 per cent) since being stripped of the Labour whip just under two years ago. Patrick Mercer has voted on 24 occasions out of 184 divisions (13.6 per cent) since he resigned from the Tory Whip. Mike Hancock has much the best record of the three errant MPs, with a voting record of just under 45 per cent since he lost the Lib Dem whip in May 2013, but this is nevertheless a very low total for a backbencher.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that three constituencies have gone at least partially unrepresented in recent months, and Parliament is relaxed that this should remain the case. Portsmouth, where Hancock is MP, has cause to feel especially neglected. His neighbouring MP, the Conservative Penny Mordaunt, recently participated in an exhausting televised diving competition, though she claims she scheduled all her training out of parliamentary hours.
One would not expect that Speaker John Bercow, a notorious expense “flipper”, to be much bothered by this kind of conduct, and he hasn’t been. However, it is surprising that neither the Prime Minister nor either of the other two main party leaders tolerate the situation. Their supporters point to the fact that the three MPs have been stripped of the whip; but this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Before the 2010 election, the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour each pledged that they would legislate to allow voters the power of “recall”, thus giving ordinary people the chance to force a by-election. The proposal was so uncontroversial that it slipped easily into the Coalition Agreement: “We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing the voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrong-doing.”
The Coalition government finally published a Bill in draft form last December, but it comes too late and – worst of all – puts a parliamentary committee in charge. As the Tory dissident Zac Goldsmith told the Guardian last week: Recall it is “about empowering voters not parliamentary committees. The Government’s proposals are the opposite of what was intended and promised.”
Why have David Cameron and Nick Clegg broken their promise? It is impertinent to speculate about motive, but my guess is that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are terrified of a by-election. Hancock’s Portsmouth South constituency and Patrick Mercer’s Newark are classically vulnerable to the Ukip electoral insurgency.
Meanwhile, up in Falkirk Ed Miliband and Labour have serious problems of their own. With Labour discredited, the Scottish National Party could easily win. So all three party machines seem to have concluded that it is better to allow Hancock, Joyce and Mercer to wander round Parliament like a foul smell than to allow voters their say.
It is a decision that shows the habitual contempt in which the British political class holds voters. By an interesting paradox, that contempt is the reason for the rise of Ukip in the first place. To answer James Arbuthnot’s complaint, it is no wonder that so many people believe that “everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook”.
Hat tip: Peter Oborne at The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10604812/Joyce-Hancock-and-Mercer-are-perfect-examples-of-Parliaments-low-standards.html