Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Interesting points made on this blog here: edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Let them eat cake springs to mind too.

26k is more money than i take home
Do you think if MPs salary (and lets face it the expenses are part of that salary) was less it would make things better in Westminster, or worse?

I've long held the opinion that MP's should receive a stipend of £250k minimum.

In return they must undertake to perform no duties other than representing their constituents and possibly representing parliament. If they are called upon to perform duties other than representing their constituents, then they should receive expenses to cover any out of pocket costs. The £250k stipend includes any and all expenses they may incur if their business as an MP, so if they want to employ their wife or other family members, they can do so and pay them out of the £250k. Similarly, if they wish to own a second home, they are welcome to have one, they can pay the 2nd mortgage out of their £250k. The £250k stipend is also to cover travel between their constituency and parliament.

Oh, one more thing: their parliamentary working week will commence at 13.00 hours every Monday (bank holidays excepted) and end an 16.00 hours each Thursday. They then have all day Friday to attend to constituancy business. They should be aware though, a reasonable amount of overtime will be expected and will be unpaid.

IDS's inclusion of child benefit in the calculation is particularly nasty. You will have the situation where a family would be denied this benefit because having it would take them over the £26K threshold while a family with two people earning £40K will keep it even after the stupid legislation to remove it form higher rate tax payers.

What this shows is he clearly does not understand the concept of a universal benefit and does not know the difference between that and a welfare benefit. Getting the latter when you fall on hard times should not disqualify you from the former.

I think he knows the diefference all right, it just doesn't fit his dogma to see them as different.

But, hey, he's got a point ... those kids don't deserve to be helped, they shouldn't have chosen such lazy, feckless parents.

The best quote I heard yesterday was from one Tory, "Some people will lose their homes, they'll just have to move to a neighbourhood they can afford won't they".

The Labour party has a lot to answer for. They should be ripping into this nonsense but instead have disappeared up their own rear end talking about public spending cuts they can't commit to reversing "if" they get elected in three years time (which they absolutely won't anyway - and frankly don't deserve to be on current showing). F******g idiots led by a f*****g idiot.
He's "Tuff" though, really, really "Tuff". I almost cried the day they elected Mr Ed as leader, a coalition government that should have lasted 18 months with anything like a decent opposition has gone on to preside over riots, condemnation over rediculous and costly NHS reform plans, "increased" f*****g borrowing, sent us plummeting towards recession again (as predicted), the usual Tory levels of unemployment, the worst press scandal in living memory and now a highly predictable -it's all the foooking poor's fault bashing of people on benefits while the c***s who caused all the problems award themselves billions in bonus's again. And still, Call Me Dave's comedy writers have him sh***tting all over Mr Ed at every PM's question time.

Time to swap Millibands, hire Jon Stewart's writers and start taking some of the polish off the turd that is David Cameron (apparantly you can Mr Sadowitz - he's the living proof).

They should be ripping into all sorts of nonsense such as this, the education and NHS "reforms". Outright opposition and a clear statement that Labour will re-create the NHS as a true public service would win them the election on its own. Would unpicking Lansey's work cost money? Undoubtedly but that would be money well spent.

Unfortunately they are too timid to state outright opposition to anything as they try to appear reasonable. Alistair Darling is being proved right over the economy with even the IMF warning austerity with no growth is too dangerous a path to follow. There are plenty of government policies that require outright opposition and that would not imply any fiscal irresponsibility.

Unfortunately swapping Millibands would not work because D Milliband is as much a closet Tory as Blair was and that is why his brother got the leadership of the party in the first place. I think people expected Ed to be a darn sight redder than he is over things like the NHS but apart form Andy Burnham saying what Lansely is doing is wrong (which it is) he is not saying he will reverse the reforms if he gets into office.

That well know peddlar of insanity, The Guardian, had an article this morning likening Cameron's government / times / potential fate to Ted Heath's. Tellingly though, it ended by saying that Cameron can be thankful he doesn't have to face Harold Wilson in The Commons.

The problem with your analysis DHM is that although Labour need a new leader because they elected a clown they also need a fundamental change in policy direction. The other brother would not give that. The time is right for a really radical left-wing stance to be taken that starts off by absolutely and utterly rubbishing in an illectually sound way Thatchersim, New Labour and the coalition. Is that likely to happen? No chance with the current PLP in office.