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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sympathetic_Reaction, Feb 9, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

  2. 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...
    • Like Like x 5
  3. What a ****ing liberty, the hypocritical *****!
    • Like Like x 1
  4. It should also generate a nice few expense claims...
    • Like Like x 1
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. I think HM should send the Princess Royal to answer the questions - one evil look from her should silence the spineless gits!
  8. 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.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Principle and Hodge in the same sentence, how very imaginative of you.
    • Like Like x 3
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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>
    • Like Like x 2
  13. And THAT attitude Gentlemen, is indicative of everything wrong with this Country.