Yet again the Politicians think they have the moral hgh ground!

#1
#3
Since politicians have now reneged on both the Civil List agreement, and now the 15% revenue agreement, I expect that HM would be fully and legally justified in reverting to the pre-1760 arrangement in retaining 100% of the Crown Estates income. I expect that portion of the national wealth would be a great deal better managed than it is at present...
 
#7
I'm quite sure that HMQ's finances will bear scrutiny and far better than a similar scrutiny of the HoP's finances. Where the People pay for the Monarch they have the right to ensure they are getting value for their money but that must be balanced against the contribution the Crown Estates make to our economy. Hodge is merely establishing the principle that anyone who has access to public funds should be scrutinised regularly. A principle that may well enable the public to have much greater scrutiny of why working class lasses need £124 rolls of wallpaper to furnish their free flats. (I know it wasn't Hodge but the principle is the same throughout).
 
#8
Should it result in civil war the two sides will be interesting;

Taxpayers and serving/newly redundant servicemen vs CS non jobs(diversity outreach officers and the like), and the massed chavs of the Kyle massiv.
 
#9
I think HM should send the Princess Royal to answer the questions - one evil look from her should silence the spineless gits!
 
#10
Once we've checked the Queens' finances are in order (and they will be) we should go through the HoP and HoL finances like ebola.
 
#11
I'm quite sure that HMQ's finances will bear scrutiny and far better than a similar scrutiny of the HoP's finances. Where the People pay for the Monarch they have the right to ensure they are getting value for their money but that must be balanced against the contribution the Crown Estates make to our economy. Hodge is merely establishing the principle that anyone who has access to public funds should be scrutinised regularly. A principle that may well enable the public to have much greater scrutiny of why working class lasses need £124 rolls of wallpaper to furnish their free flats. (I know it wasn't Hodge but the principle is the same throughout).
Principle and Hodge in the same sentence, how very imaginative of you.
 
#12
Margaret Hodge's time would be better spent examining per fellow MP's expences, if she gets herself on a percentage of what she saves the country, then she could laugh all the way to the bank.
 
#13
Margaret Hodge's time would be better spent examining per fellow MP's expences, if she gets herself on a percentage of what she saves the country, then she could laugh all the way to the bank.
If that's the case she's already pissed her drawers laughing with the fifty-odd million she's already got stashed, and that's just in her piggy bank. She'll probably flog you the grundies, like, presuming they're tax-deductible.
 
P

Prefect

Guest
#14
I really don't see the issue. Once you pay tax it's not your money it's public money whether you pay £140, £14,000 or £1.4m. But that doesn't mean they don't have a dutyto justify how it is spent.

If public money is being spent by anyone at all then we, through the people that we elect, should be able to question the spender.

It's about seeing through the principle of accountability not whether we like the questioner or not. If Prince Andrew has been using RAF flights to get to golf courses we should know just as we should know if a particular Royal event and expense led to British Businesses getting a direct benefit.

Principles are not about personalities. Just like the Monarchy debate itself should not be about personalities.

<puts on tin hat, locks down doors and waits for inevitable deluge of bile from frothing Monarchists>
 
#15
I really don't see the issue. Once you pay tax it's not your money it's public money whether you pay £140, £14,000 or £1.4m.


>
And THAT attitude Gentlemen, is indicative of everything wrong with this Country.
 
P

Prefect

Guest
#17
And THAT attitude Gentlemen, is indicative of everything wrong with this Country.
Nice edit. One that omitted the point that people should be accountable for what they do with it to those that contribute to the Exchequer. Whoever they are and regardless of what they put in.

Or perhaps the attitude that she's the Queen and the rest of us can **** off back to being unquestioning Serfs is the attitude you'd prefer?

People constantly claim that Monarchy is value for money. What's wrong with auditing that assertion?
 
#18
It's about seeing through the principle of accountability not whether we like the questioner or not. If Prince Andrew has been using RAF flights to get to golf courses we should know just as we should know if a particular Royal event and expense led to British Businesses getting a direct benefit.

Principles are not about personalities. Just like the Monarchy debate itself should not be about personalities.
The questioner should be beyond reproach though, even if they are disliked.
 
#20
Her Majesty's record of service and duty to her country has been beyond reproach - on that basis alone I believe the low-life in the Commons should mind their own business.

When the monarchy no longer serve this country with distinction then we should let someone with some authority and the respect of the people examine the royal accounts - I doubt such a person/people would be our politicians.

Just my opinion of course!
 

Similar threads

Top