BS: Thatcher expenses

Subject: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 01:21 PM

I will just refer you to this article - I invite your comments

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/thatcher-claims-500k-expenses-five-years-075709097.html

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:40 PM

Very interesting article. Here's a blicky for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 02:52 PM

Why should any of them get a penny over and above the extremely generous pensions which they ensured they receive?

That's not wholly a rhetorical question. Perhaps someone might be able to suggest some actual reason justifying these payments of expenses.

Expenses are generally seen as a way of ensuring that people can carry out the job they are employed to do. Once you retire from a job anything you do is either leisure or voluntary work, nothing to do with your previous employers.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 08:11 PM

isnt she supposed to be suffering from alzheimers? perhaps she had forgotten she had already claimed and claimed again

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Oct 11 - 09:15 PM

Well Labour and Conservative seem united on one point. they have identified themselves as deserving causes.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 05:02 AM

Perhaps all of the grossly remunerated bankers and CEOs have lobbied (behind closed doors - natch!) to ensure that their chief benefactress is 'seen alright'.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 05:50 AM

Pigs with feet in troughs.
Apart from the fact that pigs smell a lot sweeter...
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:17 AM

The blicky at top of thread doesn't display well on my computer/browser. Here's the same article elsewhere.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/thatcher_claims_500k_expenses_in_five_years.

It seems the diverting of public money to ex-prime ministers was invented by John Major only ten years ago.
I would like to see full amounts for the full ten years and what happened previously.
Blair's total was about half that of Thatcher, but he still pocketed more in expenses that he did in a year as Prime Minister.

In the meantime their friends and cronies in big business are doing okay...

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/pay_rises_soar_by_49_for_uk_s_top_bosses.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 06:22 AM

In the meanwhile any protests made about them all will be arbitrarily stamped on St. Paul's Protest Camp.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Mayet
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:17 AM

AS Geoff described, following a recommendation from the Top Salaries Review Body in 1988, from 1991 all former Prime Ministers were entitled to a pension equal to half their ministerial salary, immediately on leaving office and however long they had served (worth £66,000 pa in 2009).
Since 1991 they have also received a special additional allowance- the 'Public Duties Cost Allowance' - to help fund an office, secretarial support and for work including answering letters and attending public events.
The maximum allowance for each former prime minister has steadily increased from £47,568 in 1997 to £100,205 in 2008, I couldn't find the information for the current rate but it would appear Thatcher is claiming the maximum available
A government car and driver for all ex-Prime Ministers was made available from 1975 so presumably id not included in these 'expenses'

Margaret Thatcher's ill health severely limits her engagements (in 2008 Carol Thatcher confirmed that her mother was suffering from dementia)
Her doctors advised that she should not make public speeches in the wake of some minor strokes six years ago Since then she has attended an address by the Pope in the UK and a party to mark former Defence Secretary Liam Fox's 50th birthday at his London apartment and claimed £535,000 of taxpayers' money from the public duties cost allowance available to ex-PMs.

That must be an awful lot of letters then!

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 07:51 AM

Just to restore the balance, and ameliorate the same old, same old, vilification of Thatcher.


"Sir John Major, who succeeded her in Downing Street, has received £490,000. He created the fund when he was in power in 1991.

Tony Blair, who beat Sir John in the 1997 election, has been given just under £273,000 from the public purse since 2007.

In 2008-9, he received more from the allowance than he earned from his official salary when he was prime minister the year before."

Why was I surprised to find that Richard didn't start this thread ? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:00 AM

It don't matter - the hatchet faced bitch has been suffering from dementia for years and has not attended the house for a long time - she is also a miulti-millionaire - why does she feel the need to claim expenses? She boasted that during her time as PM she never drew a salary - ??????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 08:36 AM

John - I have already mentioned Tony Blair's share of the trough. Just because Blair is an unprincipled self-seeking git doesn't in any way give an excuse to Thatchers totally unjustifiable theft from the honest people of this nation.
Quack!
Geoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Pizel
Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:43 AM

The £535000-00 paid out to Thatcher is just the tip of the iceberg.

Days before attending a lunch [private] at a well known hotel/restuarant situated on the banks of the Thames ten[10] plain
clothed S.B.men went over the premises with a fine toothcomb.On the
day of the lunch she appeared with a further ten S.B.[10] men in tow.
I have no doubt that the hard pressed taxpayers of this country are paying for this regal style of living by this freeloading parasite.

Is her blue-eyed boy Sir Mark still persona non grata in this country?

For obvious reasons I name no names.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:22 AM

Have remarked before how strange is the behaviour of the Leftie·Of·The·Species ~~ the Postwar Marxist Consensus lot ···

~~ your Silases, Carrolls, Geoff-the-Ducks, McCormicks {cont p 94} ~~

~~ all so driven by such loving motives towards all humanity ~~

···and all so incapable of referring to those who fail to share their Love Of All Mankind except by such terms as "hatchet-faced bitch", "make me want to throw up", "share of the trough", "unprincipled self-seeking git"...

Such charmers all, the lot of them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:54 AM

So can anybody suggest some plausible reason why taxpayers should be expected to pay these expenses to people whom they no longer employ, and who are already receiving very sizeable pensions?

Is there some view that they are still acting as representatives of the British public when they are invited on public speaking engagements? I suppose it might be argued that if they are not reimbursed for things like that to cover expenses - but any expenses or payments paid to the exPMs for such speaking engagements ought to be taken into account in estimating the expenses payable by us should be taken into account, and that doesn't appear to be the case.

What people think of Thatcher as an individual shouldn't be seen as relevant in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:00 AM

It occurs to me that in most cases these are not just former employees, they are former employees who have been dismissed because they were not felt not to be up to the job. (The bizarre exception to this is Tony Blair, who seems to unite most shades of public opinion in shared dislike. Which is not of course relevant to the immediate issue.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,davemc
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM

Lady Thatcher deserves every penny. Our country needs her kind of leadership again but, sadly, we just get the same old third raters from each of the electable parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Pizel
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:52 AM

When politicians/celebrities agree to undertake any charitable work
the fee they charge is usually negotiated and agreed in writing by the charity with the addition of a first class clothing allowance,food, accommodation and travel.This is all off the top before the charity gains a penny.
Some celebrities appear to survive solely on this type of work.
Ex politicians, not content with such a munificent deal, have the taxpayer fork out expenses on top, this in anyones book is fraud,even yours, surely mthegm.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:58 AM

Whether people admire or despise Mrs Thatcher is not relevant. The question is, why any former Prime Minister should be entitled to this perk at our expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:18 AM

Hands up all those that, if offered this sort of money, would turn it down..........ahhhhh that's what I thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:28 AM

Pizel ~ Don't know why you address me specifically on this; or even assume that you know where I stand on the question. All I have contributed to this thread is some distaste at the tone and the terminology in which some of the Lefty-Consensus Boys elect to express their views.

For the rest, I am in one of those can-see-both-sides situations which increasingly bedevil me over so many issues as I age.

But I still don't see why the likes of some can't keep civil tongues in their heads most of the time.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:45 AM

lefties ...all so driven by such loving motives towards all humanity

Like Maggie was/is, you mean? It is to laugh. Or cry.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:57 AM

I tell you again, Greg: I take no specific stand on that issue. But I don't think Lady Thatcher would ever have referred to Silas, e.g., had she had occasion to do so, in terms analogous to those he sees fit to use of her. How does it advance anyone's argument to assume that all right-thinking people must so necessarily be on their side that it is OK to use terms like 'hatchet-faced bitch' of anyone whom the Consensus, in all its self-righteous certainty of moral virtue and correctness of opinion, happens to disapprove of.

Hatchet-faced whatever-the-male-equivt-of-bitch-might-be right back to you, Silas ~ & I hope it keeps fine for you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:19 PM

I tried to post yesterday evening, but Mudcat seemed to go inactive for a while.
The comment I was intending to make was that if Thatcher is genuinely suffering from dementia, she is presumably not capable of making these expenses claims.
I find the thought that some other lying bastard is actually claiming this obscene amount of cash.

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:32 PM

Then there is the matter of the state funeral for this dreadful woman, when she passes on, the bill footed, of course, by the British tax-payer

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:33 PM

"But I don't think Lady Thatcher would ever have referred to Silas, e.g., had she had occasion to do so, in terms analogous to those he sees fit to use of her."

I tend to agree that the use of invective and abuse in political debates is not helpful and does nothing to advance such debates. But don't forget that Mrs Thatcher was once a powerful force in this land and some of us think that she instituted policies which were not in the best interests of the majority of people in this country. I strongly suspect that many of those policies are contributing to the economic mess that we find ourselves in today. Her fervent espousal of the unregulated, free market is looking more and more like the dangerous nonsense that many of us thought it to be during her premiership. Showering her with abuse serves no purpose - but I certainly don't think that she's worthy of any sort of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:27 PM

Shimrod ~~ I happen to think we are all worthy of the respect of reasonable courtesy; you appear indeed to take something of the same view.

I am aware also that there is one ob·lox·ious person on this forum to whom I decline, under extreme provocation, to pretend even to be courteous. But nobody's perfect ~~ as my father used to say, don't do as I do...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:34 PM

I still don't see why the likes of some can't keep civil tongues in their heads...

I quite agree with that. But could it be that someone else has been posting in your name, MtheGM,?

eg ...you drivelling heap of piggiturd...He is a piece of dehumanised toxic filth

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:37 PM

That question was answered in the post immediately preceding yours, Kevin. I make that one exception because stinking Mr Shithouse-Shouter, aka Colostolox, began it all on the Muslim Prejudice thread, and even I have my limits as to what I can be expected put to up with from that nasty little heap of piggiturd.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:40 PM

Sorry ~ I meant ShitBAG-Shouter, of course. I make no apology to him, and shall continue to denounce him as such at every opportunity on the forum that offers ~~ so thank you for furnishing me with one.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:30 AM

I must congratulate him, mind you ~ he deserves congratulations. He quite deliberately set out to niggle & rile me with unprovoked & intolerable insults ·····

and

                CONGRATULATIONS, Piggiturds

he succeeded.

Which is why my injunctions to courtesy do not apply in his instance...

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:34 AM

Methinks there is a typo here.

Th*tcher expenses should read Th*tcher expensive.

She cost the country its soul.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:08 AM

I believe we should apply zero tolerance to ourselves in such matters, MtheGM. Otherwise we have no justification for complaining when others do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:13 AM

Probably right, Kevin. As I remarked above ~~ nobody's perfect...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:11 PM

I would like Zero Tolerance on crooked politicians of all and any political colour.
But Michael, if you are serious about unpleasant and inflammatory language on political comments, perhaps you should look at the right wingers, who use nothing but.
e.g. BS: Wasters at St Paul's to be kicked out

Quack!
GtD

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:43 PM

GtD ~ I have said nothing whatever about inflammatory language on political comments. What Kevin & I are discussing is the offensive language about colostomy bags & body smells that the objectionable little individual who hides behind the name of Lox used to me, with no provocation, on another thread 10 months ago. Why should I forget it or let the matter drop? He has never apologised or moderated his deliberate insults in any way. I say again: he is to be congratulated - he tried to provoke and niggle me [he actually said "I'm glad I pissed you off", ~ 02 feb 11] ~ & he succeeded. So congratulations! & I shall reserve the right to remind him & any who care to listen from time to time what a dribbling drivelling little heap of piggiturd he is ~ which is the language that for some reason has upset poor McGrath.

"Political comments" just do not figure. They are of no interest to me at all. Telling Lox that he is a stench in the nostrils of Decency, otoh, is.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:10 AM

From those last few posts you appear to be in two minds about this, MtheGM. Or possibly more.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:36 AM

McGrath:

"Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious,
Loyal and neutral, in a moment?" (Macbeth 2.3.116)

.,,.

One shouldn't quote the Scottish Play, they say; but Mudcat isn't a dressing-room, for all the dirty linen on show sometimes...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:07 AM

nevertheless intriguing. who is MGM speaking of?

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:21 AM

Lox, Al. Have said so a dozen times. He gratuitously insulted me without any provocation on a thread some months back, explicitly wrote
"I'm glad I've pissed you off", 2 Feb, and has refused to apologise ever since. Maybe he will, some day ~~ oh look, pretty piggy flying past window ~ maybe it is the one that shat him.

I say again ~~ he is to be congratulated: set out to be offensive ~~ and succeeded in ♠♠. Why should I overlook it, or forget it, or whatever. If I did then he would have failed, wouldnt he?

You'll find it all on BS:Muslim Prejudice, 27 Jan 11 0437 am - 11 Feb 11 1131 pm.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:04 AM

Calm down, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:38 AM

Mike I have measureless respect for you as a singer, and a writer and all the things you have achieved. But when the exchange gets down to calling the other party pigshit - well - its better not to continue with it.

Some people are wind up merchants. I know you've gigged outside the folkscene - so you'll know all about that. One night a guy sat down next to my father in law in a bar where I was playing. Ohgreat! he says, I didn't know there was someone playing. I can take the piss out of him.......

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:00 AM

Note your opinion Al. Would, indeed, much prefer

"not to continue with it"

as I haven't with one or two other ongoing disputes with Don & Jim, where an accommodation was sought & found by both sides.

Have you read what I m responding to? It is insufferable; and I see no reason why I should be expected to suffer it. All I have asked for throughout is an apology. Any sign of one ~ no. Nothing more than "I'm glad I've pissed you off".

Will there be one? Only in your dreams, I suspect.

So should I go on putting up with being pissed off? Why? Would you?

When the apology comes, all will be different. meanwhile, that piggy & its produce continue to fly past my window...

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:03 AM

... and all would be to an extent obviated if only I had any idea, from him or from anyone else, what occasioned his offensive tirade in the first place ~~ a matter which appears destined forever to remain a profound secret between him & his troubled psyche.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:33 AM

It appears that my (borrowed) comment about the hatchet faced bitch has caused some offence. I find this a difficult concept. Thay are, after all, only words. The hatchet faced bitches deeds caused untold misery to millions of people. So lets have a sense of proportion here. My expression 'hatchet faced bitch' is quite the mildest terminology I could use in describing the smug cow.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:53 AM

The concept of 'only words' is a dangerous one, Silas. 'Mein Kampf' was only words; 'The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion' was only words; 'Why don't you fuck off back where you came from, you stinking wog' is only words; 'Silas is making a prick of himself' is only words...

You are not a fool, Silas (are you?).

So don't come on so disingenuous...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:57 AM

Well, I agree that some words can be powerful when used in certain contexts, however, my point was that my calling the hatchet faced bitch a hatchet faced bitch pales to insignificance when compared to the wasteland that she made out of parts of this country and the abject misery and suffering that she caused to many good people.
I'll be glad when she eventually drops off the twig to be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: BTNG
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 10:39 AM

"I'll be glad when she eventually drops off the twig to be honest.'

I'm sure she would feel the same about you, if you were worth noticing

Subject: RE: BS: Thatcher expenses
From: Silas
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 11:09 AM

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.