SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kpain who wrote (10486)7/4/2008 12:43:46 PM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 50328
 
What an excellent document! It's a pity the UK politicians don't adopt it either.

news.bbc.co.uk

politics.co.uk

Mind you some of the alternate courses of action suggested look promising -g-

I have the day off as well. It's my daughters birthday, and I celebrate losing the war with the American colonies too.

============================================================

Nice work if you can get it: MPs keep their perks

independent.co.uk

By Ben Russelland Nigel Morris
Friday, 4 July 2008

MPs defied public outcry last night and threw out attempts to curb their generous second home allowances and rejected calls for tough new external audits on their claims.

They voted to keep the £23,000 a year additional costs allowance and retain the so-called John Lewis List that allows them to claim taxpayers' money for furniture, household goods and home improvements.

The vote by 172 to 144, a majority of 28, means MPs will still be able to make the maximum claim for items on the list. MPs also threw out attempts to impose a system of external "financial health checks" on their claims and extend spot checks on expenses by the National Audit Office.

Proposals to force them to provide receipts for all claims, no matter how small, were also voted down.

Instead, MPs backed a motion calling for a "rigorous internal system of audit" that would examine MPs' claims once every four years.

A string of senior ministers were among MPs voting down the reforms. They included Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary, and Shaun Woodward, the Northern Ireland Secretary. Gordon Brown did not vote.

Among the Tories voting to keep the second homes allowances unchanged were Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton, who have been embroiled in controversy over their claims for a flat owned by a family trust.

The expenses vote sparked recriminations at Westminster last night. Conservatives accused the Government of "sabotaging" attempts to clean up expenses and claimed a string of senior ministers joined rebels in rejecting the reforms.

Sources said MPs became embroiled in shouting matches in the division lobbies as emotions ran high. Liberal Democrats blamed an "unholy coalition of Labour and Conservatives" for the vote.

A committee of senior MPs, chaired by the Speaker Michael Martin, had called for MPs' second homes allowances to be cut to a maximum of £19,600 a year and said they should not be able to charge for appliances, furniture and household improvements. Instead they recommended that MPs should get a daily £30 subsistence payment for attending sittings at Westminster.

But the recommendations were rejected, despite calls from all three major parties to accept them.

MPs had earlier voted to reject calls for an inflation-busting pay deal and threw out plans for a £1,950 package of top-up payments to bring their salaries up to comparable public sector jobs. Instead, they accepted government proposals linking their pay to a basket of public sector jobs that will limit their rise to 2.25 per cent this year.

Meanwhile, it emerged that more than one in four MPs, including a string of senior ministers, employ relatives on their taxpayer-funded payrolls.

The new register of members' interests showed that 176 out of the 646 MPs at Westminster have at least one family member on their staff and 10 employ two or more.

The list, released yesterday alongside MPs' declarations of outside earnings, showed that the practice is even more widespread than previously believed.

From the start of next month, all MPs must declare any close family members they employ using parliamentary allowances under new anti-sleaze rules.

The latest list includes two cabinet ministers. Jacqui Smith employs her husband Richard Timney as a senior research/parliamentary assistant on a salary of between £27,780 and £40,052. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, employs his wife Sally Clark as a research/parliamentary assistant earning between £14,212 and £34,240.



To: Kpain who wrote (10486)7/4/2008 7:29:16 PM
From: Nihontochicken  Respond to of 50328
 
You beat me to it! Well, I was considering only posting these two parts of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

" And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


These two passages have a special ring for me as a former life-long, now reformed and repentant, Republican. But whatever your political bent, a happy 4th to all! Corn and steaks now cooking on the barbie, and Sam Adams Cherry Wheat chilling in the fridge. Life is still good.

NC



To: Kpain who wrote (10486)7/5/2008 9:11:50 PM
From: jimss  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 50328
 
One question if you please.

Where in this document does it say the courts can make up any crap they want, and say "it's in the Constitution" when it obviously isn't?