Gravy Train

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 29 May 2005, 22:28

We were truly

after reading this article.

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=581422005

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 29 May 2005, 23:03

I agree with Tommy on this one.

Easy way into the Edinburgh housing market - when they are already earning good salaries and if they don't get re-elected in 2007 - easy money renting out the place.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 29 May 2005, 23:56

...AND they can claim expenses for travel and accomadation

mmmmm, so they can do that AND buy a flat in Edinburgh, now that's milking the system

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 May 2005, 10:55

Tommy Sherdian = 119th worst attender at Parliament out of a possible 126, a fine example of MSP conduct, I must say. What grounds does he have to call the conduct of his colleauges into question?

MSP's lining their own pockets = the donuts that voted for a Scottish Parliament getting their just desserts. What else did one suspect would happen? Unfortunatley it also means that those that didn't vote Yes, get shafted too. But hey, we already knew that.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 30 May 2005, 12:24

Porty wrote:Tommy Sherdian = 119th worst attender at Parliament out of a possible 126, a fine example of MSP conduct, I must say. What grounds does he have to call the conduct of his colleauges into question?
Perhaps you shuld have a butchers at www.theyworkforyou.com
seems as thought its not just the Scottish Socialist's who appear to be shirking their duties!

Tommy Sheridan is just making it public knowledge - and why not?
It would make interesting reading to find out who the 48 MSP's are who have bought other homes with their travel/accom. allowance's.

MSP's lining their own pockets = the donuts that voted for a Scottish Parliament getting their just desserts. What else did one suspect would happen? Unfortunatley it also means that those that didn't vote Yes, get shafted too. But hey, we already knew that.

I agree with you totally. and likewise did not vote for this.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 May 2005, 13:43

Porty wrote:Tommy Sherdian = 119th worst attender at Parliament out of a possible 126, a fine example of MSP conduct, I must say. What grounds does he have to call the conduct of his colleauges into question?

As an elected MSP, every right. Just as they have every right to call his attendance into account.

You are using your usual argumentative tool of diversion. Instead of directly addressing the concern raised by Gemini, you smear the voters of Scotland and the person who lodged the complaint. How very New Labour.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 May 2005, 14:11

Dadaist wrote: As an elected MSP, every right. Just as they have every right to call his attendance into account.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said integrity instead of grounds.

Dadaist wrote:You are using your usual argumentative tool of diversion. Instead of directly addressing the concern raised by Gemini, you smear the voters of Scotland and the person who lodged the complaint. How very New Labour.

I'm not smearing the voters of Scotland, I'm saying they get what they deserve. So do the non-voters.

Smearing Tommy Sherdian. How's that then? I restated a fact about his parliamentary attendance. Its not even a besmirch never mind a smear, just a fact.

Im not denyimg that MSP's helping themselves is a concern. I'm just saying their are various ways to skin a cat. And Tommy's as adept as any other.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 May 2005, 19:29

Porty

To attempt to put a stain on/vilify the integrity/reputation of one's political enemy is the *definition* of a smear. You've clarified your position rather than denied it.

I'm glad that you are concerned about New Labour MSPs helping themselves!

I haven't a clue at what you reckon Tommy is adept at though - care to elaborate?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 31 May 2005, 09:23

Dadaist wrote:I haven't a clue at what you reckon Tommy is adept at though - care to elaborate?

Causing lots of heated debates on 'Portobello on Line'.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 May 2005, 12:54

There are other facts you can't dispute.

Whilst Neo-Labour have no immediate cashflow problems, the SSP relies on member subs to keep going. I believe Tommy had to take out a personal loan to clear the party's debt, and it's also widely known that all the SSP MSPs donate half of their salary to the party as well.

Porty is quite right to point out at this juncture that he wouldn't trust an organisation that can't handle its finances with the running of the country. That's fine, but he feels that he is in a position to not only trust New Labour and their leader Phony "Tony" Blair (whilst simultaneously not trusting his pal Dubya) but to level criticism at Sheridan based on *integrity*.

My own view is that Tommy Sheridan has more political integrity in his little finger than that of the combined ranks of New Labour. Porty can join the end of the queue of people and newspapers who find Sheridan an easy target to sling mud at. We're sadly not short of Tony's cronies round these parts.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 31 May 2005, 16:30

Dadaist wrote:There are other facts you can't dispute.

My own view is that Tommy Sheridan has more political integrity in his little finger than that of the combined ranks of New Labour. Porty can join the end of the queue of people and newspapers who find Sheridan an easy target to sling mud at. We're sadly not short of Tony's cronies round these parts.

I must endorse what Dadaist has said.

Have had the great pleasure of meeting Tommy, when he came along to support the Teachers /Parents, trying to save Lismore Primary School from closure. He and the other SSP MSP's-and, I also must include Susan Deacon here, are the only Politician's I have heard, that are seriously interested in the people and their communities.

How many MSP's/MP's for that matter, would have brought along a couple of bottles of Parliament Bubbly to toast the Reporter's decision - then join in an eightsome -reel?
Susan's article in the EN was also excellent.

Besides all this - Tommy and Colin Fox are a bit of alright

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 May 2005, 17:37

Is the subject of this debate "Political" integrity? Here was me thinking it was; how some can abuse a position of privelege or power to their own ends.

Dadaist wrote:......but to level criticism at Sheridan based on *integrity*....

What I was trying to say is, people, including his Parliamentary colleagues may have more respect for TS views, if he chose to turn up at work more often. Maybe if he travelled to work on say a daily basis his argument may have more force.

Can you imagine someone at your work who is consistenty absent for 2 days out of every 4 complaning effectively about a colleague's traveling expenses.

No matter how much you love the colleague shagger surely you must see the irony?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 31 May 2005, 17:57

Porty wrote:Is the subject of this debate "Political" integrity? Here was me thinking it was; how some can abuse a position of privelege or power to their own ends.

The subject of the debate is exactly that, I was mearly pointing out, in my own opinion, that

there's very few Politicians who possess this quality.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Jun 2005, 12:50

Gemini wrote:
Porty wrote:Is the subject of this debate "Political" integrity? Here was me thinking it was; how some can abuse a position of privelege or power to their own ends.
The subject of the debate is exactly that, I was mearly pointing out, in my own opinion, that there's very few Politicians who possess this quality.

So you can do Bold too?

I think there are a number of politicians who do possess these qualities, in fact I think its more the case than not.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 01 Jun 2005, 16:01

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Porty wrote:Is the subject of this debate "Political" integrity? Here was me thinking it was; how some can abuse a position of privelege or power to their own ends.
The subject of the debate is exactly that, I was mearly pointing out, in my own opinion, that there's very few Politicians who possess this quality.
So you can do Bold too?

I think there are a number of politicians who do possess these qualities, in fact I think its more the case than not.

Porty, I am seriously thinking of buying you a Rattle, seeing as how you are starting to notice things.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 01 Jun 2005, 16:30

Gemini wrote: Porty, I am seriously thinking of buying you a Rattle, seeing as how you are starting to notice things.

...snake?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Jun 2005, 18:12

Which of these is the more profound truth - that Porty always answers a question with a question, or that Porty most probably would have trusted Judas *after* the betrayal?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jun 2005, 12:25

Dadaist wrote:Which of these is the more profound truth - that Porty always answers a question with a question, or that Porty most probably would have trusted Judas *after* the betrayal?

Who has been betrayed?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Jun 2005, 13:36

Porty wrote: Who has been betrayed?

James Keir Hardie.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jun 2005, 13:46

Well that's ok, isn't it? Times have moved on. Lessons have been learned. Experiences have been......had.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Jun 2005, 19:24

Porty wrote:Well that's ok, isn't it? Times have moved on. Lessons have been learned. Experiences have been......had.

Yes, and posts have been edited too!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Jun 2005, 20:28

From tonight's EN

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=613352005

Sure he is in the 1st article.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =602432005

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Jun 2005, 21:12

I believe Tommy S argument is seriously flawed. he appears to have no issue with the allowance per se only with the mechanics of how it is used. If the MSP's are only claiming interest costs then what difference does it make whether its; interest, rent or hotel expenses?

The debate on whether their should or should not be an allowance is an entirely different matter.

(BTW if the addresses of the properties are known then surely the value,rchase price and size of mortgage are public knowledge?)

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Jun 2005, 23:29

I believe Tommy S argument is seriously flawed. he appears to have no issue with the allowance per se only with the mechanics of how it is used. If the MSP's are only claiming interest costs then what difference does it make whether its; interest, rent or hotel expenses?

Think what he is saying is that - large profits can be made if/when the properties are sold - perhaps they have been bought to rent? perhaps the properties are not registered in their own names, but funded by them?

The debate on whether their should or should not be an allowance is an entirely different matter

The debate is about what these allowances can and should be used for ethically/morally - it is Public Money, therefore it should follow that every penny is accounted for.

(BTW if the addresses of the properties are known then surely the value,rchase price and size of mortgage are public knowledge?)[/quote]

You would need to be Sherlock to find this out.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 05 Jun 2005, 13:08

Gemini wrote:I believe Tommy S argument is seriously flawed. he appears to have no issue with the allowance per se only with the mechanics of how it is used. If the MSP's are only claiming interest costs then what difference does it make whether its; interest, rent or hotel expenses?

Think what he is saying is that - large profits can be made if/when the properties are sold - perhaps they have been bought to rent? perhaps the properties are not registered in their own names, but funded by them?

I know of one MSP who has used this allowance to buy a flat in Edinburgh, however they were then in the paper recently giving as an excuse for why they were staying with a 'friend' in Edinburgh "I didn't have anywhere else to stay in Edinburgh"

And BTW Porty, I don't see how this proves that voting for a Scottish Parliament was all a big mistake - do you seriously believe that it's only certain MSP's, and not some MP's, MEP's, councillors, etc, etc that milk the system for what it's worth. Unfortunately, it's only human nature to take what you can out of a job/system (some more than others), but that doesn't mean that pointing it out when it's discovered is wrong.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jun 2005, 14:41

bearcub wrote:And BTW Porty, I don't see how this proves that voting for a Scottish Parliament was all a big mistake - do you seriously believe that it's only certain MSP's, and not some MP's, MEP's, councillors, etc, etc that milk the system for what it's worth.

No I don't believe this proves the SP was a big mistake.

Quite honestly I think we should look at the achievement of the SP and the performance of our representative to establish whether its been worthwhile or not. How do you think its going?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jun 2005, 15:23

I have been thinking about this overnight and there may well be an issue.
Personally, I see no difference whether the alowance is spent on rent, hotels or interest.

However, it should be spent ONLY on the purpose it is allowed for and it ought to be farly easy for Tommy or anyone else for that matter, to prove whether or not the monies have been misused.

If an MSP claims, his/her/trannie, whole, Ã‚Â£10,600 allowance to offset the interest costs on a mortgaged property. Then they are sayng "I incurred Ã‚Â£10,600 worth of Interest in the last year". It is then a matter of simple arithmetic to work out the mortgage size. We can assume a reasonable, not deep discounted mortgage rate, of say 5.25%. If an MSP was claiming for Interest Costs only, then there would be a mortgage of Ã‚Â£202,000. Which, would even in todays market, buy a decent flat, close to the Parliament.

However here's the rub. I am pretty sure MSP's can only claim living allowance when they are attending or have attended Parliament or on Parlamentary business. It is therefore not on, for the people of Scotland to pay for their interest costs on non business days. (Can you imagine us forking out for weekend hotel accomodation every weekend for example).

Let us say that 1/3 of the year can be spent on Parliamentary business (I don't know) . In my book and I'm pretty sure everyone else's an MSP should be able to claim about 150 days costs. Therefore someone justifiably claiming Ã‚Â£10,600 in Interest costs would have to have a mortgage of Ã‚Â£491,000!!! I can't believe that any of them do.

Someone should tell Tommy or a journalist that they dont need specifics they just need arithmetic.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 05 Jun 2005, 17:36

Quote Porty:

Someone should tell Tommy or a journalist that they dont need specifics they just need arithmetic<<end

Why don't you?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jun 2005, 18:02

Gemini wrote:Quote Porty:

Someone should tell Tommy or a journalist that they dont need specifics they just need arithmetic<<end

Why don't you?

Ok, I will. There are people here closer to Tommy than I am so unless they come forward and offert i will have to make it the journalist.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 05 Jun 2005, 18:07

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:Quote Porty:

Someone should tell Tommy or a journalist that they dont need specifics they just need arithmetic<<end

Why don't you?
Ok, I will. There are people here closer to Tommy than I am so unless they come forward and offert i will have to make it the journalist.

I personally don't know of anyone who uses this forum, who is close to TS.
I suspect it will be down to you to contact a journalist.
Good Luck.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 05 Jun 2005, 19:28

Porty wrote:
bearcub wrote:And BTW Porty, I don't see how this proves that voting for a Scottish Parliament was all a big mistake - do you seriously believe that it's only certain MSP's, and not some MP's, MEP's, councillors, etc, etc that milk the system for what it's worth.
No I don't believe this proves the SP was a big mistake.

Quite honestly I think we should look at the achievement of the SP and the performance of our representative to establish whether its been worthwhile or not. How do you think its going?

I don't believe it's doing all it's capable of, but then again I believe it should be given more power. I think the reason it's not doing what it's capable of is because it doesn't have all the power - I think too many MSP's won't go that extra mile because they're living in a comfort zone of having a Westminster 'buffer'. At the moment, it's too easy to say "that's not in our jurisdiction, blame Westminster". Without this, I believe that our Parliament would have to stand on it's own two feet, and would live/die by the consequences of that. And yes, there would be mistakes, but then again you learn by your mistakes, and you learn a lot quicker when you don't have someone else to blame.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 17 Jun 2005, 07:19

Anger from Pensioner Groups at MSP's expenses!

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=665282005

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 17 Jun 2005, 09:07

The issue should be the expenses - not who is doing the complaining.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 17 Jun 2005, 12:29

Pal of Porty wrote:The issue should be the expenses - not who is doing the complaining.

IMO, both issues are of equal importance.

The majority of pensioners in the UK are paid a pittence, in
fact they are the poorest in Europe.

When your pension is means tested, and some elected/unelected
representatives, who let's face it, are not short of a bob or too, are dipping their paws
into seemingly bottomless honeypot paid for by the taxpayers.
Then I think everyone has the right to complain. I say good for the pensioners for taking this stance.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 17 Jun 2005, 14:19

Gemini wrote:...IMO, both issues are of equal importance.

I agree but they separate issues and should not be confused.