It must be the packet of smokes that I buy, after adjusting for the tax I have already paid, and the tax on the ciggies, it seems right. Oh, hang on a mo...no, I'm wrong, its too cheap :veryangry::veryangry:
A very powerful piece of writing by Bryan Forbes
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
It must be the packet of smokes that I buy, after adjusting for the tax I have already paid, and the tax on the ciggies, it seems right. Oh, hang on a mo...no, I'm wrong, its too cheap :veryangry::veryangry:
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Obviously a smoker - but the answer is not really. If you have any Turkish blood in your veins this will incense you. Its Britains share /contibution to the cost of bailing out the Greek economy. Get your pens out and start writing. This cannot continue.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
You could not make this shit up. It just goes from bad to worse.
Politicians granted legal aid
Three politicians accused of fiddling their expenses have won a bid to get the public to pick up their legal bill.
Published: 3:55PM BST 12 Apr 2010
(L-R) Labour MPs Elliot Morley, Jim Devine , David Chaytor
Court officials said that the trio of Labour MPs will receive taxpayer-funded legal aid.
David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine are due to go on trial later this year accused of theft by false accounting.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
The cost of preparing their defence and of their legal representatives is likely to run into six figures, depending on the length of the trial.
But it could spiral far higher as the men threaten to take their battle to have the case against them thrown out to the Supreme Court.
Lord Hanningfield, who is accused of making false claims for travel allowances, has not made an application for legal aid, the court official added.
The three MPs have brought together some of the country's most eminent barristers, who can charge hundreds of pounds an hour, to fight their cases.
They have already told judges they should be dealt with by Parliamentary authorities instead of the courts.
Barrister Julian Knowles QC said the defendants will claim to be protected by parliamentary privilege, covered in the 1689 Bill of Rights.
There is now likely to be protracted legal argument over whether the men should face trial at all later this year.
The opening exchanges will be made a two-day hearing before trial judge Mr Justice Saunders at Southwark Crown Court from May 27.
An HM Courts Service spokesman confirmed an application for legal aid for the three men was granted last Friday.
Legal argument was originally due to take place from May 4 onwards, but this was rescheduled because some representatives were unavailable.
There has already been speculation that the total cost of prosecuting the four could exceed £3 million.
Scotland Yard said its inquiry into the expenses scandal has cost £508,500 so far, with the final bill likely to be considerably higher.
Mr Knowles, a leading junior barrister who represented the three MPs at their first magistrates' court appearance, declined to comment.
A spokesman for Edward Fitzgerald QC, who is due to represent at least two of the MPs at the crown court, said he was not aware of a legal aid decision.
Bury North MP Chaytor, 60, of Todmorden, Lancashire, is accused of falsely claiming rent on a London flat he owned, falsely filing invoices for IT work and renting a property from his mother, against regulations.
Scunthorpe MP Morley, 57, of Winterton, North Lincolnshire, allegedly falsely claimed £30,428 in interest payments between 2004 and 2007 towards a mortgage on his home which he had already paid off.
Livingston MP Devine, 56, of Bathgate, West Lothian, is said to have wrongly submitted two invoices worth a total of £5,505 for services provided by Armstrong Printing Limited.
He also faced a second charge alleging that he dishonestly claimed cleaning and maintenance costs of £3,240 by submitting false invoices from Tom O'Donnell Hygiene and Cleaning Services.
Former Essex County Council leader Lord Hanningfield, 69, faces six charges of making dishonest claims for travelling allowances.
The politicians could face up to seven years in jail if found guilty of stealing taxpayers' cash. Each defendant will be tried separately.
Politicians granted legal aid
Three politicians accused of fiddling their expenses have won a bid to get the public to pick up their legal bill.
Published: 3:55PM BST 12 Apr 2010
Court officials said that the trio of Labour MPs will receive taxpayer-funded legal aid.
David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine are due to go on trial later this year accused of theft by false accounting.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
- <!--ACI--><LI sizset="39" sizcache="36">Politicians who have quit since the expenses scandal
<!--ACI--><LI sizset="40" sizcache="36">Boris Johnson accuses BNP of turning Buckingham Palace party into 'political stunt'
<!--ACI--><LI sizset="41" sizcache="36">Voters want a general election with candidates of integrity
<!--ACI--><LI sizset="42" sizcache="36">MPs expenses: Michael Martin's four-year battle to keep the details secret
<!--ACI--><LI sizset="43" sizcache="36">MPs' expenses: 'lack of moral leadership' revealed by politicians
<!--ACI--> - Quangos spent £300,000 of taxpayers' money at party conferences
The cost of preparing their defence and of their legal representatives is likely to run into six figures, depending on the length of the trial.
But it could spiral far higher as the men threaten to take their battle to have the case against them thrown out to the Supreme Court.
Lord Hanningfield, who is accused of making false claims for travel allowances, has not made an application for legal aid, the court official added.
The three MPs have brought together some of the country's most eminent barristers, who can charge hundreds of pounds an hour, to fight their cases.
They have already told judges they should be dealt with by Parliamentary authorities instead of the courts.
Barrister Julian Knowles QC said the defendants will claim to be protected by parliamentary privilege, covered in the 1689 Bill of Rights.
There is now likely to be protracted legal argument over whether the men should face trial at all later this year.
The opening exchanges will be made a two-day hearing before trial judge Mr Justice Saunders at Southwark Crown Court from May 27.
An HM Courts Service spokesman confirmed an application for legal aid for the three men was granted last Friday.
Legal argument was originally due to take place from May 4 onwards, but this was rescheduled because some representatives were unavailable.
There has already been speculation that the total cost of prosecuting the four could exceed £3 million.
Scotland Yard said its inquiry into the expenses scandal has cost £508,500 so far, with the final bill likely to be considerably higher.
Mr Knowles, a leading junior barrister who represented the three MPs at their first magistrates' court appearance, declined to comment.
A spokesman for Edward Fitzgerald QC, who is due to represent at least two of the MPs at the crown court, said he was not aware of a legal aid decision.
Bury North MP Chaytor, 60, of Todmorden, Lancashire, is accused of falsely claiming rent on a London flat he owned, falsely filing invoices for IT work and renting a property from his mother, against regulations.
Scunthorpe MP Morley, 57, of Winterton, North Lincolnshire, allegedly falsely claimed £30,428 in interest payments between 2004 and 2007 towards a mortgage on his home which he had already paid off.
Livingston MP Devine, 56, of Bathgate, West Lothian, is said to have wrongly submitted two invoices worth a total of £5,505 for services provided by Armstrong Printing Limited.
He also faced a second charge alleging that he dishonestly claimed cleaning and maintenance costs of £3,240 by submitting false invoices from Tom O'Donnell Hygiene and Cleaning Services.
Former Essex County Council leader Lord Hanningfield, 69, faces six charges of making dishonest claims for travelling allowances.
The politicians could face up to seven years in jail if found guilty of stealing taxpayers' cash. Each defendant will be tried separately.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Bloody heck, your mob are making our lot look almost honest!
You are right David if it was a movie script the producer would throw it out for not being believable.
You are right David if it was a movie script the producer would throw it out for not being believable.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Our News programs are full of the political leaders hitting 4 cities per day with their own aeroplanes, so called battle buses with opulent white leather interiorss and huge flat screen all over the bus, loads of party faithful and followers being bussed around to cheer every new scripted speech they come out with. And for what. It's all a load of bullshit. They have lied in the past, they have cheated on their expenses, most of them shack up with each other (notice I said shack not shag though their may be some truth in that as well) and nearly all of them are so sleazy you would not share a lift with them. What price green house gases and carbon footprint after all the hot air and carbon emissions being generated in this fiasco of an election. Sure - we have to have an election but we know all about these low lifes already.
I would like to put a different meaning on a 'hung' parliament by bringing back some traditions in the Marble Arch area where low lifes used to be hung every weekend.
I would like to put a different meaning on a 'hung' parliament by bringing back some traditions in the Marble Arch area where low lifes used to be hung every weekend.
BBC News - MoD to compensate female soldier for discrimination
Political correctness gone mad. I will vote for any party that gets rid of laws that end up with decisions going like this. It is so nice to know that Britain is completely protected - as long as the children arent ill or the child minder away!!!
Political correctness gone mad. I will vote for any party that gets rid of laws that end up with decisions going like this. It is so nice to know that Britain is completely protected - as long as the children arent ill or the child minder away!!!
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Just some more on the previous post. A bit of silly fun while you have your bacon and eggs:
A tale of two payouts: Now single mother who couldn't sort out childcare demands £1.1m - seven times more than Army offered hero who lost legs
<SCRIPT src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
By Michael Seamark
Last updated at 8:03 AM on 15th April 2010
One is a soldier who suffered 37 separate injuries in a landmine blast and was offered a paltry £152,000.
The other is a woman who won a controversial sex discrimination claim over Army childcare and now wants an extraordinary £1.14million in compensation.
Last night there was a storm of protest over the iniquity of the very different handling of their two cases. The amount being demanded by Tilern DeBique is seven times that originally offered to severely-wounded paratrooper Ben Parkinson.
He lost both his legs and suffered severe brain injuries.
The full extent of Miss DeBique's claim emerged at an employment tribunal - after the single mother successfully argued she was forced to choose between a military career and caring for her four-year-old daughter.
More...
The £1,142,257 total includes £473,535 for loss of earnings, £325,160 for loss of Army benefits, £315,562 for loss of pension rights, £18,000 for 'hurt feelings' and £10,000 in aggravated damages.
Mr Parkinson's mother, Diane Dernie, said: 'I was forced out of my job to look after my child and I got nothing.'
Her son was initially offered £152,000 but was eventually awarded £570,000 compensation - but only after the Goverment caved in to public outrage.
Mrs Dernie added: 'I can't see how Ben and all these other boys' lives are worth so much less. These soldiers have done their duty, they have done their job but their careers are over. This woman can get another job but for Ben, that's it - for life.'
Lord Guthrie, former Chief of Defence Staff, described Miss DeBique's compensation claim as a 'crazy and highly unrealistic amount of money'. He added: 'I think in comparison with soldiers who put their lives on the line, their widows and those who are wounded, it's indecent.'
General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff and head of the Army during the Iraq invasion, called the amount 'an extraordinary figure'.
Miss DeBique, 28, who calls herself SexyT on her MySpace webpage, admits turning down a UK posting with childcare facilities and applying for civilian jobs in Afghanistan before leaving the Army.
She quit her job as a technician in the 10th Signal Regiment in April 2008 after being disciplined for failing to appear on parade because of childcare difficulties for her daughter Tahlia, now four.
Besides winning her landmark sex discrimination case Miss DeBique also won a claim for race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean - where she was recruited - to look after her child.
Her victory left senior officers facing the nightmare task of having to consider soldiers' childcare problems before giving them orders.
She is claiming over £;1.14million because she argues that she would have stayed in the Army until 2023, instead of being forced to quit her £30,341-a-year job after seven years of service.
The MoD's barrister Keith Morton branded her compensation claim ' perverse' and said it was 'unreasonable' for Miss DeBique to have turned down a posting that offered childcare while applying for lucrative civilian jobs in Afghanistan.
She was offered a 'unique' five-year non-deployable posting to Blandford Army garrison in Dorset, which had childcare facilities, in 2007.
Miss DeBique says she felt unable to accept the posting because she only had four days to make a decision and because of the Army's previous failure to address her childcare needs and instead, handed in her year's notice in April 2007.
Miss Debique, who lives in Tooting, South West London, quit when she was disciplined for failing to be available for duty around the clock. Her commanding officer told her the Army was 'unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements'.
The Central London Employment Tribunal panel is due to announce its compensation award tomorrow.
Read more: Now single mother who couldn't sort out childcare demands £1.1m - seven times more than Army offered hero who lost legs | Mail Online
A tale of two payouts: Now single mother who couldn't sort out childcare demands £1.1m - seven times more than Army offered hero who lost legs
<SCRIPT src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
By Michael Seamark
Last updated at 8:03 AM on 15th April 2010
One is a soldier who suffered 37 separate injuries in a landmine blast and was offered a paltry £152,000.
The other is a woman who won a controversial sex discrimination claim over Army childcare and now wants an extraordinary £1.14million in compensation.
Last night there was a storm of protest over the iniquity of the very different handling of their two cases. The amount being demanded by Tilern DeBique is seven times that originally offered to severely-wounded paratrooper Ben Parkinson.
Payout protest: Ben Parkinson, left, will need a lifetime of care and was offered £150,000, while Tilern DeBique, who couldn't find childcare, is claiming £1.1m
He lost both his legs and suffered severe brain injuries.
The full extent of Miss DeBique's claim emerged at an employment tribunal - after the single mother successfully argued she was forced to choose between a military career and caring for her four-year-old daughter.
More...
- Military madness: By suing the Army, Lance Cpl DeBique has betrayed all women soldiers who believe in duty, says former top female officer
- Call me Sexy T: The single-mother soldier suing Army for £1.1m over childcare
The £1,142,257 total includes £473,535 for loss of earnings, £325,160 for loss of Army benefits, £315,562 for loss of pension rights, £18,000 for 'hurt feelings' and £10,000 in aggravated damages.
Mr Parkinson's mother, Diane Dernie, said: 'I was forced out of my job to look after my child and I got nothing.'
Her son was initially offered £152,000 but was eventually awarded £570,000 compensation - but only after the Goverment caved in to public outrage.
Mrs Dernie added: 'I can't see how Ben and all these other boys' lives are worth so much less. These soldiers have done their duty, they have done their job but their careers are over. This woman can get another job but for Ben, that's it - for life.'
Lord Guthrie, former Chief of Defence Staff, described Miss DeBique's compensation claim as a 'crazy and highly unrealistic amount of money'. He added: 'I think in comparison with soldiers who put their lives on the line, their widows and those who are wounded, it's indecent.'
General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff and head of the Army during the Iraq invasion, called the amount 'an extraordinary figure'.
Miss DeBique, 28, who calls herself SexyT on her MySpace webpage, admits turning down a UK posting with childcare facilities and applying for civilian jobs in Afghanistan before leaving the Army.
She quit her job as a technician in the 10th Signal Regiment in April 2008 after being disciplined for failing to appear on parade because of childcare difficulties for her daughter Tahlia, now four.
Besides winning her landmark sex discrimination case Miss DeBique also won a claim for race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean - where she was recruited - to look after her child.
Her victory left senior officers facing the nightmare task of having to consider soldiers' childcare problems before giving them orders.
She is claiming over £;1.14million because she argues that she would have stayed in the Army until 2023, instead of being forced to quit her £30,341-a-year job after seven years of service.
The MoD's barrister Keith Morton branded her compensation claim ' perverse' and said it was 'unreasonable' for Miss DeBique to have turned down a posting that offered childcare while applying for lucrative civilian jobs in Afghanistan.
She was offered a 'unique' five-year non-deployable posting to Blandford Army garrison in Dorset, which had childcare facilities, in 2007.
Miss DeBique says she felt unable to accept the posting because she only had four days to make a decision and because of the Army's previous failure to address her childcare needs and instead, handed in her year's notice in April 2007.
Miss Debique, who lives in Tooting, South West London, quit when she was disciplined for failing to be available for duty around the clock. Her commanding officer told her the Army was 'unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements'.
The Central London Employment Tribunal panel is due to announce its compensation award tomorrow.
Read more: Now single mother who couldn't sort out childcare demands £1.1m - seven times more than Army offered hero who lost legs | Mail Online
I really wish I had not read this - the amount of money being offered is disgraceful. Actually the thought she will get even a penny of money makes my blood boil. I am so furious I cant even laugh at the stupidity of it all. It is an insult to the soldiers who do their duty at risk of their own lives. It is an insult to all people who campaigned to get equal pay for equal WORK. It is an insult to anyone who believes in fairness and justice.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Furious is a bit of an understatement. I can think of a million things - all politically incorrect - that I could spout about this useless specimen. I heard she harbours ambitions to be a politician. One has to suppose now she has experienced the free hand outs from the government she has become addicted in a similar way the MPs
have been stealing as well. What would I do? Send her and her bastard child back to the carribean from whence she came with a flea in her ear, a big army boot up her arse, and no money in her bank.
have been stealing as well. What would I do? Send her and her bastard child back to the carribean from whence she came with a flea in her ear, a big army boot up her arse, and no money in her bank.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Afghanistan Wartime Architecture February 2010 Part 2
If war can be amazing then these are amazing photographs.
If war can be amazing then these are amazing photographs.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Looking at those images makes me ask again WTF are we doing there?
Thanks for the post David.
Thanks for the post David.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel
BBC News - Single-mother soldier gets thousands from MoD
Even £17k is too much
Ian
BBC News - Single-mother soldier gets thousands from MoD
Even £17k is too much
Ian
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The problem with socialist Goverment is world wide.
Now, in this election year, he's spending up to $1 billion of your money to fix the damage.
That's right: Rudd is spending at least $1 billion to fix the havoc he's unleashed by handing out free insulation, splurging on overpriced school buildings, relaxing boat people laws, letting in an unsustainable 300,000 people a year - and more.
Oh, I know. You think I'm far too hard on a PM with the air of a particularly methodical Christian dentist. But one disillusioned day you will hear from many who now work with him that how Rudd seems is bizarrely different to how he is.
I don't just mean that this prissy churchgoer is privately a foul-mouthed, arrogant and paranoid control freak, but that many of his brightest ideas swiftly flop.
The truth is his skill at spinning has so far saved Rudd's reputation as a manager.
But check the substance rather than the image and you find he already qualifies as possibly the most incompetent prime minister since World War II.
And, no, I haven't forgotten Whitlam.
Take Monday's announcement that his Government will spend another $14 million on a taskforce to tackle the massive rorting of its $16.2 billion school stimulus scheme.
This so-called "Building the Education Revolution" spendathon was always destined to be a colossal waste.
But even I couldn't predict the rorting.
In NSW builders have charged $800,000 a time for more than 40 covered outdoor learning areas which state government costings say should have cost $250,000 each.
In <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Victoria</st1lace></st1:State>, even a dying school with just two children was given $150,000, and from everywhere came complaints that BER developers were charging "management fees" of up to 21 per cent.
That's all your money, folks. Blown in what some now call the Builders' Early Retirement fund. Now the Government is spending even more of your money - $14 million - on a taskforce to stop the looting of what's left of our $16.2 billion.
Or to seem to.
Why did Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard only now announce this "safeguard" when it's been clear for months that your taxes were being wasted like never before in our history?
Three reasons, all squalid.
First, Sunday Night on Channel Seven last weekend ran a devastating report on this scandal. Second, it's election year, and a taskforce makes you seem you're dealing with the problem.
And third, although Gillard refuses to admit it, she has an advance report on this BER racket from the Auditor-General that is likely to be devastating, and it's a fair bet she set up her taskforce to short-circuit the criticism she'll get when it's released.
This BER rorting is the biggest Rudd waste so far. But the more graphic symbol is his free insulation scheme.
Rudd barged ahead even after his own department was warned in writing a year ago that rushing out these freebies could attract shysters, burn houses and kill people.
It all happened, as Rudd was warned, with four installers dead, 120 homes set on fire and more than 300,000 homes fitted with potentially lethal or near-useless junk.
To fix the disaster and compensate the losers, the Government may now have to spend anything up to $1 billion. It also means taxpayers must pay millions to take out insulation that Rudd made them pay millions to put in. It couldn't get crazier.
Correction. It already has. See, Rudd meant this giveaway to "stimulate" the economy and put people in jobs. But the day before Easter (a good time to bury bad news) his government announced, in effect, that his insulation scheme had killed off the very industry he'd meant it to help.
The Government said it would now give insulation manufacturers $15 million to help them stockpile all the batts and foil they can no longer sell, now that Rudd's scheme has stuck the stuff in a million more ceilings.
Those stockpiles of unsellable batts are a clear sign that these once healthy businesses have been poleaxed. Indeed, an industry which once predicted Rudd's free insulation plan would create 4000 jobs now says its collapse has cost the jobs of 6000.
That's why Rudd has spent another $41 million of your money to help retrain the people sacked from an industry he spent billions to "stimulate".
And still this lunatic incompetence doesn't end. To fix this mess before the election, Rudd has switched his entire emissions trading team on to it.
Remember them? They're the 154 public servants Rudd originally hired to work on what until this year he called "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" - the man-made global warming he told us his great new green tax on everything would help stop.
But that tax is now blocked in the Senate, and public support for it is falling like a batt out of hell, so Rudd has put "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" on the backburner and set his $57 million-a-year team of planet-savers to work on insulation instead.
And still this comedy is not done. Rudd last weekend froze the processing of refugee applications from <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Afghanistan</st1lace></st1:country-region> to stop the tide of boats he unleashed by weakening our boat people laws two years ago. Boat people were a problem John Howard had fixed, cutting arrivals to just 18 boats over six years. Rudd unfixed that problem by going soft, so he's now luring in more than 10 boats a month.
The <st1lace w:st="on">Christmas Island</st1lace> detention centre is full and fixing this will cost hundreds of millions more of your dollars, with the 2000 people who've arrived just this year costing some $80,000 each to process.
Then there's the whole new "Department of Population" Rudd abruptly created to hose down the alarm he'd raised by not only letting in a record 300,000 immigrants last year, but by then endorsing predictions that our population will explode to 36 million by 2050.
And we still don't know how much in total we must pay for all Rudd's other failures - FuelWatch, Grocery Watch, the scrapped tender of his first broadband scheme, the lobbying for his pan-Asian body, the botched Green Loans plan, the rorted solar hot-water scheme, the "Ideas Summit" fiasco and the new nuclear disarmament body.
More amazing is that Rudd retains the air of a man who knows just what he's doing, and is across every detail. Watch him now sell his latest multi-billion-dollar plan - a health shake-up that Ken Baxter, former head of the premier's departments in the Victoria and NSW, warns will create a bureaucratic monster that will eat money.
But look at Rudd. See how assured and competent he seems, even as his last schemes still fall around his ears?
Amazing gift, that, and you're paying billions for it.
- <LI style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3" class=MsoNormal>By Andrew Bolt <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o><LI style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3" class=MsoNormal>From: <CITE>The Daily Telegraph </CITE><o></o>
- April 14, 2010 12:00AM <o></o>
Now, in this election year, he's spending up to $1 billion of your money to fix the damage.
That's right: Rudd is spending at least $1 billion to fix the havoc he's unleashed by handing out free insulation, splurging on overpriced school buildings, relaxing boat people laws, letting in an unsustainable 300,000 people a year - and more.
Oh, I know. You think I'm far too hard on a PM with the air of a particularly methodical Christian dentist. But one disillusioned day you will hear from many who now work with him that how Rudd seems is bizarrely different to how he is.
I don't just mean that this prissy churchgoer is privately a foul-mouthed, arrogant and paranoid control freak, but that many of his brightest ideas swiftly flop.
The truth is his skill at spinning has so far saved Rudd's reputation as a manager.
But check the substance rather than the image and you find he already qualifies as possibly the most incompetent prime minister since World War II.
And, no, I haven't forgotten Whitlam.
Take Monday's announcement that his Government will spend another $14 million on a taskforce to tackle the massive rorting of its $16.2 billion school stimulus scheme.
This so-called "Building the Education Revolution" spendathon was always destined to be a colossal waste.
But even I couldn't predict the rorting.
In NSW builders have charged $800,000 a time for more than 40 covered outdoor learning areas which state government costings say should have cost $250,000 each.
In <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Victoria</st1lace></st1:State>, even a dying school with just two children was given $150,000, and from everywhere came complaints that BER developers were charging "management fees" of up to 21 per cent.That's all your money, folks. Blown in what some now call the Builders' Early Retirement fund. Now the Government is spending even more of your money - $14 million - on a taskforce to stop the looting of what's left of our $16.2 billion.
Or to seem to.
Why did Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard only now announce this "safeguard" when it's been clear for months that your taxes were being wasted like never before in our history?
Three reasons, all squalid.
First, Sunday Night on Channel Seven last weekend ran a devastating report on this scandal. Second, it's election year, and a taskforce makes you seem you're dealing with the problem.
And third, although Gillard refuses to admit it, she has an advance report on this BER racket from the Auditor-General that is likely to be devastating, and it's a fair bet she set up her taskforce to short-circuit the criticism she'll get when it's released.
This BER rorting is the biggest Rudd waste so far. But the more graphic symbol is his free insulation scheme.
Rudd barged ahead even after his own department was warned in writing a year ago that rushing out these freebies could attract shysters, burn houses and kill people.
It all happened, as Rudd was warned, with four installers dead, 120 homes set on fire and more than 300,000 homes fitted with potentially lethal or near-useless junk.
To fix the disaster and compensate the losers, the Government may now have to spend anything up to $1 billion. It also means taxpayers must pay millions to take out insulation that Rudd made them pay millions to put in. It couldn't get crazier.
Correction. It already has. See, Rudd meant this giveaway to "stimulate" the economy and put people in jobs. But the day before Easter (a good time to bury bad news) his government announced, in effect, that his insulation scheme had killed off the very industry he'd meant it to help.
The Government said it would now give insulation manufacturers $15 million to help them stockpile all the batts and foil they can no longer sell, now that Rudd's scheme has stuck the stuff in a million more ceilings.
Those stockpiles of unsellable batts are a clear sign that these once healthy businesses have been poleaxed. Indeed, an industry which once predicted Rudd's free insulation plan would create 4000 jobs now says its collapse has cost the jobs of 6000.
That's why Rudd has spent another $41 million of your money to help retrain the people sacked from an industry he spent billions to "stimulate".
And still this lunatic incompetence doesn't end. To fix this mess before the election, Rudd has switched his entire emissions trading team on to it.
Remember them? They're the 154 public servants Rudd originally hired to work on what until this year he called "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" - the man-made global warming he told us his great new green tax on everything would help stop.
But that tax is now blocked in the Senate, and public support for it is falling like a batt out of hell, so Rudd has put "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" on the backburner and set his $57 million-a-year team of planet-savers to work on insulation instead.
And still this comedy is not done. Rudd last weekend froze the processing of refugee applications from <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">Afghanistan</st1lace></st1:country-region> to stop the tide of boats he unleashed by weakening our boat people laws two years ago. Boat people were a problem John Howard had fixed, cutting arrivals to just 18 boats over six years. Rudd unfixed that problem by going soft, so he's now luring in more than 10 boats a month.The <st1
lace w:st="on">Christmas Island</st1lace> detention centre is full and fixing this will cost hundreds of millions more of your dollars, with the 2000 people who've arrived just this year costing some $80,000 each to process.Then there's the whole new "Department of Population" Rudd abruptly created to hose down the alarm he'd raised by not only letting in a record 300,000 immigrants last year, but by then endorsing predictions that our population will explode to 36 million by 2050.
And we still don't know how much in total we must pay for all Rudd's other failures - FuelWatch, Grocery Watch, the scrapped tender of his first broadband scheme, the lobbying for his pan-Asian body, the botched Green Loans plan, the rorted solar hot-water scheme, the "Ideas Summit" fiasco and the new nuclear disarmament body.
More amazing is that Rudd retains the air of a man who knows just what he's doing, and is across every detail. Watch him now sell his latest multi-billion-dollar plan - a health shake-up that Ken Baxter, former head of the premier's departments in the Victoria and NSW, warns will create a bureaucratic monster that will eat money.
But look at Rudd. See how assured and competent he seems, even as his last schemes still fall around his ears?
Amazing gift, that, and you're paying billions for it.
I wouldn't have posted that Pete. "Our" Socialists will want to employ him as he's only squandered a tiny amount compared with Bliar/Brown's gang of crooks. Financially it won't bother me but the generations following will be screwed for years and chances of a new "economic miracle" are slim to none given current global economics of the madhouse.
Put not your eggs in one basket, wise old Granny said. Well they are - in a bloody great Chinese basket - and it's got big holes in it.
I'm afraid we have probably let our grand-children down quite badly..
Put not your eggs in one basket, wise old Granny said. Well they are - in a bloody great Chinese basket - and it's got big holes in it.
I'm afraid we have probably let our grand-children down quite badly..
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Keith, on a per capita basis I think Rudd is right up there with your gang of criminals.
Sadly I agree with your comment re the grand children.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
When will they ever learn:
MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim
The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett
Published: 10:06PM BST 28 May 2010
David Laws and James Lundie Photo: GETTY/JULIAN SIMMONDS
David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.
On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.
The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6 billion.
He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.
The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.
In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.
Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.
“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.
“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.
“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”
John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.
Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.
Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.
“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.
“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”
Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.
“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”
Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.
He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.
However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.
Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.
MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim
The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett
Published: 10:06PM BST 28 May 2010
David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.
On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
- <LI class=bullet sizcache="36" sizset="40">Claim for renting the spare room in partner's flat
<LI class=bullet sizcache="36" sizset="41">David Laws profile: Lib Dem in Tory clothing
<!--ACI--><LI sizcache="36" sizset="42">How the Telegraph investigation exposed the MPs' expenses scandal day by day
<!--ACI--><LI sizcache="36" sizset="43">Auditors expected to give banks clean bill of health
<!--ACI--><LI sizcache="36" sizset="44">Barclays £30 million offer sparks City pay row
<!--ACI--> - Sir David Cooksey lined up to chair UKFI
His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.
The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6 billion.
He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.
The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.
In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.
Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.
“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.
“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.
“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”
John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.
Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.
Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.
“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.
“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”
Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.
“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”
Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.
He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.
However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.
Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.
Similar threads
