Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:04 pm

Yeah you get points on your licence every time you break a minor traffic law- get enough points you get banned for a period of time.
Speeding and parking offences are what most people get points for.

But he was a government minister- they dont have to drive themselves they get cars and drivers with them- so hardly like a cabby losing his licence, or a lorry driver.

by Eldorion Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:05 pm

Yeah, we have a similar system in Maryland, but the NYT article just casually mentioned that he might have banned from driving so I was a bit confused. Anyway, this guy seems to be a real asshole, which might explain what was going through his mind. Rolling Eyes

by halfwise Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:08 pm

but we don't get points for parking tickets. We may lose the car, but not the license.

by Eldorion Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:09 pm

Yeah, you have to seriously fuck up (usually multiple times) to lose your license here.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:12 pm

This also means as he is no longer an MP there will be a by-election in his constituency- which the libdems won by an narrow margin last time out, and their main rivals for the seat are...their Tory partners in the coalition government.
And to make it more interesting looks like UKIP are going to stand too- which could screw the Tory vote there.

I dont drive so I am not 100% sure about exactly what gets you points, what just gets you a fine and what lands you in court here (besides lying about it that is).

by halfwise Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:12 pm

Oh, you speed a number of times you'll be sent to traffic school, and if you don't go then you lose your license.

by azriel Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:15 pm

Which, for me personally, is why I cant trust ANY politician. They all lie, & will happily keep it going for years, if necessary. Even when its completely obvious to be honest & upfront, they simply cant do it ! I think its SO ingrained with them its almost part of their DNA. To late now to see how much more respect youde earn if you fessed up in the first place!

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:22 pm

You might be on to something there Azriel- the absolute worse that would have happened is a a few days of headlines for losing his license- a bit of embarrassment and maybe having to go to the backbenches for a year or so till everyone had forgotten about it before returning to government.
Mandelson did much worse and Blair had him back in no10 within a year.
Instead Hume is off to jail just because he couldnt tell the truth originally.

by halfwise Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:25 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I dont drive so I am not 100% sure about exactly what gets you points, what just gets you a fine and what lands you in court here (besides lying about it that is).

That's admirable: a vehicle is a serious money pit. With the sole exception of New York City nobody in the US can imagine not having at least one vehicle per household, students excepted. It's a weak point.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:29 pm

Ive always worked within either walking or bus distance.
And if I had a car Id probably use it for stuff like nipping to the shops, and as walking places is pretty much my entire fitness regime that would not be good.
Besides I enjoy walking, its relaxing, I get time to think or just take in the scenery.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:34 pm

by azriel Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:03 pm

Do we get annoyed cos this rather clever chappie has done it ? Or, cos we were not clever ourselves to be in that position ? Suspect

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:07 pm

I get annoyed cause the Torys keep telling us we are all in it together and introducing things like the Bedroom tax- which seems targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable and will lead to people being evicted from their homes -whilst the people who make and pass these laws are doing this. Evil or Very Mad

by halfwise Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:13 pm

I don't get it - taxes paid for a flat that he owns? here there are government houses for some positions, but they are owned by the government.

Or did he use his salary both to buy the flat and then rent it? what he does with his salary is his own business.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:16 pm

No he had a house which he claimed was needed for being near to Westminister to be a Minister, so got the tax payer to pay for it (as an expense)- then sold it to his friends and pocketed all the money- then his friends rented it back out to him- and he used more tax payers money to pay the rent to his friends.

So he has got a house, that he then sold and got all the money for, and now still stays in- all for free- the tax payer payed for it- but he and the friends he sold it to walk off with the money. Mad

by Eldorion Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:45 pm

It seems that the problem is less with this particular guy gaming the system (though he is an asshole for doing that) but more that the government shouldn't be paying for MP's living expenses in the first place. I remember the big expenses scandal a few years ago and while that was some offensive shit, I don't see what rationale there is for MPs being given subsidized housing at all. They have a salary for a reason, and I kind of doubt that any of them are especially needy.

Even if this guy for some reason really did need help paying for a new place to stay that's close to Westminster, why the hell was the deed in his name? If the government is going to pay for the flat, the government should own it and then sell the flat when the MP no longer needs it. By not doing that you're just inviting people to take advantage of the system.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:01 am

After the 'expenses scandal' there were supposed to be new rules making this sort of thing imposible (it would be in the Scottish Parliament which has very strict rules on this sort of thing- we sacked a First Minister for not declaring a taxpayer subsided office, even though he didnt benefit from it financially).

At the heart of the problem however is MP's wages- an MP gets payed 26,000 a year- a very good wage but nothing like a top city wage (if you remember in Yes, Prime Minister Sir Humphrey get paid considerably more than the Prime Minister)- this is because MP's set their own wages and it has long being hugely unpopular and electoral suicide to vote yourself a big wage increase whilst cutting other peoples.
The end result is that 'expensies' have become the way MP's top up their wage- and its been going on, on a nod and wink basis, for decades.

Ive never understood why Parliament doesnt farm MP's wages out to an independent body to set.

by halfwise Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:24 am

We have something of the same thing with congress setting their own salary, though tax payer ire has largely kept this in check.

I don't know if there's a completely fair way to deal with housing, since some will need it and some will live locally and won't, but as Eldo says here it's either government owned or it comes out of salary. It does seem that those who live locally get off easier, but for national government that's usually only a handful of congress members, and given traffic congestion they often end up paying for hotels during busy sessions anyway.

by Eldorion Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:26 am

Sometimes our Congressmen also live together in a reality TV scenario as a way to save money. I know that Britain's love for trashy reality TV surpasses even America's, so maybe you guys should look into this solution. Wink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/garden/18roomies.html?_r=0

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:23 am

Only if its elimination by firing squad. Twisted Evil

by Eldorion Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:01 pm

Speaking of Parliament, they voted to pass the Same Sex Marriage Bill (for England and Wales) today. Very Happy

I'm not clear on what other hoops it has to jump through and/or when it's supposed to go into effect though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:06 pm

A good step, but all todays vote actually means is that it will be debated in the House and a draft law will be written- that will then be debated and go though a couple more stages- then the whole thing goes to the House of Lords -if they pass it then its law- if they dont they send it back to the Commons for amendment. And then they try again.
If after the third time it still doesnt get through the Lords it becomes law anyway- as the Lords is only a revising chamber and is not elected so cant actually permantely block something passed in the Commons.

Bit convulted but probably still better than all that messy business with the guilotttenes the contintent went through.

by Eldorion Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:09 pm

Thanks for the context, Petty. Hopefully the House of Lords won't try to get in the way. *fingers crossed*

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:14 pm

Well even some who supported the vote today are not happy with the drafting, saying its not well thought through and not well worded, and will seek to amend that in the Commons before it gets to the final stage.
If these complaints are addressed in the drafting then it will probably pass the Lords - but any grumbles left in the Commons are likely to be in the Lords too and they might then send it back.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:43 am

I notce that more Tories voted against Cameron than did for him over the gay marriage bill. He hasnt taken his party with him at all.

136 vioted against including 14 minister, 2 of which are in the Cabinet.
This is why Cameron made it a free vote and not a Whiped Vote- otherwise he would be sacking 12 minister an 2 cabinet minister today.