(a) Wasn't meant as a justification, Dave, just an observation. The papers label people (as multi-millionaires or whatever else) and the labels stick, even though no-one necessarily knows the truth of the situation. :)
(b) I actually got sick of the witch-hunt and the holier-than-thou atmosphere which developed.
Not for a second do I condone the claims for homes which had already been sold, the second-home "switching", or even more trivial things like moat-cleaning or duck houses. But the Telegraph - followed by the public - got the scent of blood and pushed it too far. In the absence of anything else, MPs were even being pilloried for claiming Mars bars or bags of crisps, which were almost certainly simple oversights rather than attempts to milk every last penny.
Most of it (even some of the examples above!) was just people taking advantage of of the system which existed. It was NOT a good system, and what they were doing wasn't morally right, but it wasn't breaking the rules. And I suspect many of the people braying for their MPs' heads would do exactly the same given the opportunity.
They're a dodgy bunch, but they're all we've got. They've changed the rules. We've had an election, some of the worst offenders have been kicked out, but the new lot probably won't prove to be much different. But (unless you believe in total anarchy) someone has to do the job. I certainly wouldn't want to.
(a) he was/is a multi-millionaire, though. He was VP of morgan stanley at 22. If he's not a millionaire any more, it's his own fault. I would also point out (which I didn't think of earlier) that you can claim certain mortgage expenses etc. too- perhaps the remortgaging wasn't so much that he was short of cash, but a more expedient endeavour? :lol:
(b) the telegraph is a rag. And I don't for one second doubt that it has an ulterior motive. That's a given. But at the end of the day, he shouldn't have done it, and unterior motive or no, if he hadn't done it, they couldn't have printed it (what with our draconian libel laws). A witch-hunt suggests innocence or imagined sins. This is clearly not the case. This is clearly a lot more than claiming for an odd mars bar (which I agree is daft, and I have no problem with legitimate expenses, though a better system which is less geared towards letting them make a profit out of the expenses would be a good idea).
His claims also continued AFTER the rules changed- the house thing. And certainly once he had to go by the rules his claims for expenses dropped by a suspicious amount.
I'm not too keen on the expenses thing either, if you ask me it's drawing attention away from the banks (which is a far, FAR bigger thing in terms of the amount of gip involved, and the amount of money involved). However, I can keep my eye on two balls at once, so I don't see a problem with also being annoyed about the expenses, while at the same time realising that in the grand scheme of things it's small fry compared to all the gip going on in the wider world.
I agree that a lot of it is an excuse for ill-disguised homophobia. I actually wish he weren't gay, it'd make it easier to slag him off. :( To me the main irony and fun is the fact that someone in charge (or at least high up in the department in charge) of massive cuts who was telling everyone else to be ready for cuts was gipping expenses. And the change in his expenses (not the rent paid to his partner) had nothing to do with being gay or with keeping his private life a secret. Also, claiming the guy wasn't his partner was a pretty callous thing to do, as well.
I've never gipped my expenses, I've never even had any expenses. If being annoyed at people who do, and the fact that people who have no qualms about doing this get to the top, despite a life of privilege, while people who have never had said privilege are considered scum if they so much as steal a mars bar, makes me holier-than-thou, then I guess I'm holier-than-thou. :oops: I agree that a lot of the people shouting the loudest would do the same, but it still doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that everyone shouting would do the same. A lot wouldn't. I know I wouldn't (you can believe me or not, it doesn't matter).
Whether they technically didn't break the rules (btw, laws did) to me isn't super-important- if politicians want us to look up to them (lol), maybe they should be doing the moral thing even if the immoral thing isn't technically forbidden? Plenty of other professional people get told that they get held to a higher standard when they do the slightest thing wrong, nurses, teachers and the like. Maybe the same should be true of politicians.
I have no desire to be a politician either. In my defence, it's slightly more dangerous to be a politician here than in england, scotland or wales, but I'm not the type anyway (by that I don't mean crooked, I mean I'm quiet, shy, don't like public speaking etc.). I still say that doesn't mean we can't complain, just like you can complain if you pay anyone to do a job which you can't/won't do and they make a muck of it.
(sorry for the length, just went through your points and mr bump's)
