Mp's expenses

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Dog"]

[quote user="Russethouse"] I wonder how many MP's are routinely offered Lodge membership ? It wouldn't surprise me to find they all are. And considering a lodge would usually be made up of fairly successful members of the local community wouldn't it be a little silly to refuse ?[/quote]

Were you not reading Qs posts he says masons are butchers, bakers, ethnics - just plain ordinary people. Strange though how the ones at the top of the heaps are royals and nobility.

[/quote]

 Yes, but they are successful butchers, bakers etc - and if the nobility and royalty ( Duke of Kent?) are involved surely that shows that they have members from a wide spectre of society ?

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="Dog"]

[quote user="Russethouse"] I wonder how many MP's are routinely offered Lodge membership ? It wouldn't surprise me to find they all are. And considering a lodge would usually be made up of fairly successful members of the local community wouldn't it be a little silly to refuse ?[/quote]

Were you not reading Qs posts he says masons are butchers, bakers, ethnics - just plain ordinary people. Strange though how the ones at the top of the heaps are royals and nobility.

[/quote]

 Yes, but they are successful butchers, bakers etc - and if the nobility and royalty ( Duke of Kent?) are involved surely that shows that they have members from a wide spectre of society ?

[/quote]

Quite correct; as always, RH.

And for those with an honest enquiring turn of mind, the United Grand Lodge website states specifically and precisely who the senior officers are.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/whos-who/

And here, are ALL the books of constitutions: which one can read...........

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/book-of-constitutions/

Funny old "Secret Society" then, huh?

[blink]

[NickP]

Quillan wrote' "Another one is free travel, not many know that the 'bus pass' has been linked to the official retirement age (instead of getting it at 60). This particularly hits women because they now retire at 62 and 4 months (details on the dwp website, effects those born after 1959) and thus won't get their free bus pass till that age. As the plans to increase the age for men as well gets ever closer it is expected the same will happen. Seems another attack by a 'socialist' government on one of the more vulnerable groups in society i.e. pensioners."

The bus pass has always been linked to the retirement age, the circumstances of men getting it at 60 years of age came about because one guy queried why women got the heating allowance  at 60 and men at 65, and for once the equality law worked on behalf of the male population; this decision  then affected the bus pass.  So for you to lay this at Labour's door as an attack on pensioners is anti Labour propaganda of the highest order. As for the retirement age rising I'm not surprised? Myself; and lots of others like me left school and went to work at 15 years of age, quite normal for kids brought up and educated as factory fodder. Todays little darlings don't leave school or go to work till they are about 22, and have got their sports science or street dancing degree, so I don't see any problem with the retirement age being raised, to reflect their working life time and contribution to society  [:D]

[Quillan]

[quote user="NickP"]

Quillan wrote' "Another one is free travel, not many know that the 'bus pass' has been linked to the official retirement age (instead of getting it at 60). This particularly hits women because they now retire at 62 and 4 months (details on the dwp website, effects those born after 1959) and thus won't get their free bus pass till that age. As the plans to increase the age for men as well gets ever closer it is expected the same will happen. Seems another attack by a 'socialist' government on one of the more vulnerable groups in society i.e. pensioners."

The bus pass has always been linked to the retirement age, the circumstances of men getting it at 60 years of age came about because one guy queried why women got the heating allowance  at 60 and men at 65, and for once the equality law worked on behalf of the male population; this decision  then affected the bus pass.  So for you to lay this at Labour's door as an attack on pensioners is anti Labour propaganda of the highest order. As for the retirement age rising I'm not surprised? Myself; and lots of others like me left school and went to work at 15 years of age, quite normal for kids brought up and educated as factory fodder. Todays little darlings don't leave school or go to work till they are about 22, and have got their sports science or street dancing degree, so I don't see any problem with the retirement age being raised, to reflect their working life time and contribution to society  [:D]

[/quote]

Yes but who raised the pension age?

I like the last bit, you used to have to put in 49 years as a man to get a state pension now its only 30 so in theory if you left school at 16 and worked till your 46 (with a few gaps as it says on their website) that it your done paying, in theory that is. As you rightly say they now stay in education, keeps the unemployment figures down plus they would have to work to what, 52. If your luck enough to have a final salary private pension just work another 3 years and retire on that and pick up your state oap whenever its due. It seems to me that's its all a numbers game really that both parties play and whilst it might look good you really end up in the same place or worse off.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="Dog"]

[quote user="Russethouse"] I wonder how many MP's are routinely offered Lodge membership ? It wouldn't surprise me to find they all are. And considering a lodge would usually be made up of fairly successful members of the local community wouldn't it be a little silly to refuse ?[/quote]

Were you not reading Qs posts he says masons are butchers, bakers, ethnics - just plain ordinary people. Strange though how the ones at the top of the heaps are royals and nobility.

[/quote]

 Yes, but they are successful butchers, bakers etc - and if the nobility and royalty ( Duke of Kent?) are involved surely that shows that they have members from a wide spectre of society ?

[/quote]

Much is the same with other institutions and charities. Start with the Red Cross, was the Queen mum now its Charles. Perhaps its easier to look at the people then what they are involve in. Most off the time its to raise the profile of said organisation or charity.

[NickP]

Actually it was 44 years to receive full pension rights. I queried the fact that I had paid for 50 years, and then asked for a return of overpayment's and got told no way. As to your question as to who raised the pension age, I'll have a bet now that call me Dave if he gets in; will not lower it, in fact will increas it except for MP's and civil servants.

[NickP]

Gluestick wrote,

"And for those with an honest enquiring turn of mind, the United Grand Lodge website states specifically and precisely who the senior officers are.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/whos-who/ "

 

Didn't see too many secondary school boys in the top five of this organisation, but then I'm sure they have a few tokens further down the ladder.  [:P]

[Russethouse]

[quote user="NickP"]

Actually it was 44 years to receive full pension rights. I queried the fact that I had paid for 50 years, and then asked for a return of overpayment's and got told no way. As to your question as to who raised the pension age, I'll have a bet now that call me Dave if he gets in; will not lower it, in fact will increase it except for MP's and civil servants.

[/quote]

I shouldn't think DC would be able to afford to lower pension age with the deficit GB is leaving

[Quillan]

[quote user="NickP"]

Actually it was 44 years to receive full pension rights. I queried the fact that I had paid for 50 years, and then asked for a return of overpayment's and got told no way. As to your question as to who raised the pension age, I'll have a bet now that call me Dave if he gets in; will not lower it, in fact will increas it except for MP's and civil servants.

[/quote]

Sorry Nick I thought you was a 'fella', yes your quite right it was 44 years for a woman and 49 years for a man.

Have you ever known any party to 'turn back the clock', there was Labour going on about the denationalization of this and that but they never re-nationalised whatever it was, same game with the Tories as well. That's why I have a problem with choosing a party, they are equally as bad as each other and watching the BNP and UKIP last night on telly they don't fair much better either, not that I would even entertain voting for them.

[Will]

Anybody who has difficulty in choosing a party (or even if you think you know which way you are going to vote) should have a go at the questionnaire in the link posted by Norman yesterday in this topic.

[DerekJ]

[quote user="Will"]Anybody who has difficulty in choosing a party (or even if you think you know which way you are going to vote) should have a go at the questionnaire in the link posted by Norman yesterday in this topic.

[/quote]

But this is based on what they all say they will do.... not what they will actually do. Does anyone actually trust any of them to implement what they say in a straightforward way?  I know I don't. There lies  much of the problem... Trust!  All weasel words, spin and downright lies.

[Russethouse]

Well only the Labour party know the state of the 'books', so its harder for the others

[Will]

[quote user="DerekJ"]

But this is based on what they all say they will do.... not what they will actually do. Does anyone actually trust any of them to implement what they say in a straightforward way?  I know I don't. There lies  much of the problem... Trust!  All weasel words, spin and downright lies.

[/quote]

So if you are so cynical as to not accept any politician's statement, why bother to vote at all?

The whole point of Norman's link was to see which policy statements appealed to you. One would expect Labour or Conservative to be ahead of the rest overall, reflecting actual voting patterns. But that is not the case at all, which probably shows that most people simply vote for a party name rather than declared policies.

[DerekJ]

[quote user="Will"][quote user="DerekJ"]

But this is based on what they all say they will do.... not what they will actually do. Does anyone actually trust any of them to implement what they say in a straightforward way?  I know I don't. There lies  much of the problem... Trust!  All weasel words, spin and downright lies.

[/quote]

So if you are so cynical as to not accept any politician's statement, why bother to vote at all?

[/quote]

I will vote with the specific objective of keeping Brown out of power.

[NickP]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="NickP"]

Actually it was 44 years to receive full pension rights. I queried the fact that I had paid for 50 years, and then asked for a return of overpayment's and got told no way. As to your question as to who raised the pension age, I'll have a bet now that call me Dave if he gets in; will not lower it, in fact will increase it except for MP's and civil servants.

[/quote]

Sorry Nick I thought you was a 'fella', yes your quite right it was 44 years for a woman and 49 years for a man.

Have you ever known any party to 'turn back the clock', there was Labour going on about the denationalization of this and that but they never re-nationalised whatever it was, same game with the Tories as well. That's why I have a problem with choosing a party, they are equally as bad as each other and watching the BNP and UKIP last night on telly they don't fair much better either, not that I would even entertain voting for them.

[/quote]

I can assure you Q that I am of the male persuasion [:D]. If what you say is true, I was totally misinformed, but then what else would you expect from civil servants. I agree with you about the difficult choice, that is why I said earlier it's a shame that Lord screaming Sutch is no longer with us. He would have been a wonderful protest vote, and who knows?. Incidentally did you know that when the government raised the deposit for candidates from £150 to £500 to stop the Monster raving loony party and other independents from standing. Barclay's Bank sponsored  Sutch every time he stood in an election, interesting bed fellows?

 

[Quillan]

Ooops, sorry about that Nick. I found that 'snippet' HERE if you want to check, about 1/3rd of the way down.

The Monsters are fielding candidates this year. I was watching Nick Griffin on the news, he was 'touring' Barking with a couple of night club bouncers and a guy dressed in army desert battle fatigues just like our boys wear over in Iraq. Luckily all his bouncers could do is push the camera man and grunt that they were 'security'. You can't help feeling that the guy is a walking joke, an embarrassment almost. I don't know why but I felt the chap dressed in army fatigues was sort of not right somehow, difficult to put a finger on it if you know what I mean. The whole lot drove down Barking high street blaring out 'Land of Hope and Glory' would you believe. The biggest problem in that neck of the woods is nothing to do with immigration but the fact Ford closed everything then created a smaller new automated factory to build engines, thousands lost there jobs and there is nothing to replace those jobs lost. Anyway back to the Monsters, at the end of the piece and to show fairness they have to say who else is running and sure enough there is a monster candidate.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="NickP"]Gluestick wrote,

"And for those with an honest enquiring turn of mind, the United Grand Lodge website states specifically and precisely who the senior officers are.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/whos-who/ "

 

Didn't see too many secondary school boys in the top five of this organisation, but then I'm sure they have a few tokens further down the ladder.  [:P]

[/quote]

By "Secondary School" do you in fact mean "Secondary Modern"? Which, of course evaporated as comprehensive secondary schools took over.

No doubt as a staunch socialist you would be happier if such as Arthur Skargill, Bob Crow and Mick McGaffe were promoted to cabinet positions: along with the caldonian pillock, Michael Martin, who did nothing to grace the mother of parliaments with his lack of manners, social graces and supervisory skill.

Sadly, I cannot see any of the above gentlemen's names, gracing the boards of directors of most seriously professional major corporations.............

Interestingly, later this month, I shall enjoy a very pleasant evening with a friend, as a guest at his lodge: and he is a rather successful businessman, who sails a large yacht and enjoys frequent trips to his Tuscan villa and was indeed a secondary modern boy.

Thus [:P] back: in spades! [:D]

[NickP]

There I go struck down again by the sparkling wit and repartee of gluethick, a fully paid up member of the national front who never stops boasting about his rich mates. I'm surprised that your mother allows you to spend so much time on the computer. [:D]

[mint]

Nick, please don't blame his mother!  Why do us women have to take the blame all the time?[:P]

[NickP]

[quote user="sweet 17"]Nick, please don't blame his mother!  Why do us women have to take the blame all the time?[:P][/quote]

Sorry sweetheart, but it was said in jest [:D]

[mint]

Jest or not, you lay the blame fairly and squarely on the door of the culprit, OK?

[velcorin]

Had a discussion with the missus last night (my wife's mother is a very senior politician). I am firmly of the opinion that MPs expenses information should never have been released to the press. She disagreed. I think Christine Lagarde is right when she refused point blank to release the same information for Deputes. She disagreed. I think all the UK has achieved was destroying any vestige of public confidence in it's politicians. She disagreed.

My questions are: what has the release of this information actually achieved? What would happen to France if the same information was released?

PS Gluey, as Ted Turner's former (pro) yacht racing skipper, my mates' boats are much, much bigger than your mate's boat[:D] And I know how to cheat with the best of 'em.

 

[Hoddy]

I have no idea who to vote for because as DerekJ said I just don't believe any of them any more. I am extremely angry about this. In the past I've always voted in the most thoughtful way I could and have taken care over who I chose. This time I have very serious doubts about the ability of any of the three main parties to do the job.

Will asks, "Why bother to vote ?" You've hit a really sore point with me there Will. I feel that I've been disenfranchised and I don't even have a Monster Raving Loony candidate.

Hoddy

[Gluestick]

[quote user="velcorin"]

PS Gluey, as Ted Turner's former (pro) yacht racing skipper, my mates' boats are much, much bigger than your mate's boat[:D] And I know how to cheat with the best of 'em.

 

[/quote]

I'm sure many are: perhaps the singular difference is my chum sails it himself.............

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="NickP"]There I go struck down again by the sparkling wit and repartee of gluethick, a fully paid up member of the national front who never stops boasting about his rich mates. I'm surprised that your mother allows you to spend so much time on the computer. [:D][/quote]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, dear boy: and if you had gone to a good school, then this is one dictum of English language they might have hammered into your brain.

Please demonstrate my incessant "Boasting about my rich mates". Sources, forum URL references, please.

I was previously merely responding to your prototypical snipe.

And BTW: parodying forum member's usernames in a derogatory fashion is proscribed :

Quote:

Users must not post messages which:

• Are insulting, abusive, racist, sexist, or derogatory in any way to others, whether they are individuals or companies, users of the Forum or not. This includes material sent via personal e-mails through this forum.