On 24 Apr 2010 at 10:38am jrsussex wrote:
In the last TV debate Nick Clegg raised the subject of MP's expenses, failing to mention of course the 70/80k allowances he claimed for his private residence. Declaring his party as the clean party.
I wonder how he feels about the fact that a certain Michael Brown. donated something over £2.4 million to his party. Michael Brown is of course a convicted fraudster (and fugitive from the law) and certainly his money is tainted. I wonder if Mr Clean Clegg would return that donation to those who have been defrauded? If he is the the man, and heads up the "the only clean" party he claims does he not have a moral duty to return that money.
Die-hard Libdem supporters will no doubt claim that as the matter is water under the bridge due to it happening a few years ago, as they do with so many matters raised about NB, that it is wrong to bring it up now. Not so, those defrauded definately wouldn't agree.
Don't hold your breath on waiting for Clegg to show his moral side on the matter.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 10:53am Who cares ? wrote:
Oh deep joy, another bloody political thread with the topic starter trying to force their political opinions down everyones throats.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 10:55am Heather wrote:
This issue was addressed in the first TV debate - in which, to be fair - Clegg looked uncomftable.
BUT, how can you give money back to a fugitive? As far as I am aware they do not post their current address and bank details...(and I am not a LibDem voter). Have thouse who have been defrauded asked for their money back of late.
And, why have the local/national press been so apathetic in highlighting Baker's claims?
On 24 Apr 2010 at 12:02pm Down and Out wrote:
I tell you what jrs - why don't you provide us with a full breakdown of the history of Lord Sleaze of Belize's tax status and contributions to the Tory Party? Why don't you give us a fully detailed explanation of the relationship between Liam Fox, the Young Britons Foundation and the paid-for trips for young Conservatives to go and experience shooting semi-automatics in the US, led by the NRA? Oh - I know why not: it's be because you're a fraud and a hypocrite.
No-one on here has suggested that the Lib-Dems are clean, despite your embarrassing attempts to suggest otherwise. What has been said is that they are a damn sight cleaner than the scum you want us to vote for.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 12:29pm jrsussex wrote:
Down and Out - Oh dear here we go again. In order to defend the Libdem's you have to attack others. Being the same is no defence, I don't argue that other parties are squeaky clean, it's Nick Clegg and his supporters who say they are. All I am doing is pointing out that they are conning us in doing so.
Heather - If the Libdems were to offer that £2.4 million back to those who have been defrauded I have no doubt they would form an orderly queue outside Nick Clegg's house for the return of their money. They won't of course whilst there appears to be no hope of that happening.
Who Cares? - I'm not forcing my political opinions down anybody's throat, I am justing bringing points to the thread, obviously points that you would prefer were not raised. That you do not agree is of little consequence, after all you don't have to read my opinions.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 1:07pm jrsussex wrote:
Something else to annoy Who Cares? and Down and Out - Your very own Lord David Owen, a founder member of the Libdems, was quoted in the Evening Standard last week as saying that he felt Nick Clegg should come clean on which of the two major party's they would line up with in the event of a hung parliament. Owen feels that potential Libdem voters had a right to know who the Libdems would support in the case of a hung parliament. A very good point I thought, Lord Owen is of course absolutely right.
Just imagine you both voting Libdem only to see Nick Clegg climb into bed with David Cameron. Oh the sleepless night you would have.
I suggest you ask NB who he thinks you will "get into bed with" or you may find it beneficial to simply vote for JS, no sleepless nights.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 6:24pm Clifford wrote:
It's all very interesting JRSussex and you're right that none of the parties can claim total innocence in the expenses scandal and the LibDems should be as ashamed of themselves taking tainted money as the Tories should (not to mention Labour's cash-for-peerages. But the fact is, Baker is going to be returned in Lewes and no amount of regurgitating Conservative central office press releases is going to change that.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 6:56pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - Well done, sensible comment and at last an admission that Libdem MP's, as with other party's MP's, cannot argue that they are the clean party. All of them, and yes it was cross party, in old terms parlance, got "caught with their hands in the till". That is all I have been saying for several weeks but most NB supporters stick their heads in the sand and absolutely refuse to admit any wrong doing by him or indeed the Libdem's as a whole and seek to heap the blame on those wicked Labour and Tory rascals, whilst continuing to argue they are the clean party.
Enjoy your weekend.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 7:17pm Clifford wrote:
Exactly JR - as we can agree they are all tainted in some way then we have to get back to considering the parties' policies rather than simply throwing mud at any particular party. For myself, I don't agree with any of their policies. You have a good weekend too.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 7:32pm lewes trousers wrote:
I love all this Cod shock horror stuff about MPs and money....My old mum who is 83 in a couple of months, says balls to the lot of them...she also says that everyone knew MPs were corrupt even when she was a kid and have been for years why are we surprised... All this oh dear its terrible we allowed these people 100s of thousands of pounds expenses and they claimed for every penny even for nets for catching frogspawn in ponds they didn't have and some of them even fiddled their expenses for houses and the like.
What do we want ...a whole bunch of grey squeaky clean bean counters? Oh god the country would really go to the dogs.
They are politicians for gods sake, everyone a snake or they wouldn't have got where they are. NB is just a little less snake like than some. Hratche Koundarjian, (Labour)the so called "Third Man" looks a bit of an innocent in a nest of vipers
On 24 Apr 2010 at 7:55pm Clifford wrote:
Your old Mum knows what she is talking about Trousers. My old Mum says the same.
On 24 Apr 2010 at 8:01pm Old Cynic wrote:
JRSussex - Oh dear here we go again. In order to defend/drum up support for the Tories you have to attack others. Its getting tedious. Can't we discuss Bills or parking instead?
On 24 Apr 2010 at 8:55pm jrsussex wrote:
Old Cynic - If you like but the parking theme may get a little boring and with regards Bill's, what exactly do you want to discuss? May be a difficult as I don't know the chap.
On 25 Apr 2010 at 2:44pm MC wrote:
The Lib Dems were fully exonerated by parliamentary enquiry for the Michael Brown affair, as JRS well knows.
On 25 Apr 2010 at 5:27pm Pete wrote:
MC the moral obligation is on them to do the right thing and return the stolen money to the victims. Doing the right thing matters more than technical arguments if they are serious about cleaning up politics!
On 26 Apr 2010 at 7:20am jrsussex wrote:
MC - Correct but the commission were not overly happy about it and stated that "if any additional information comes to light, we would consider the matter further". As said by others there is the moral issue. The donation was undoubtably rooted in a fraud. Only the fact that the company involved, the donation was paid through a company operated by Michael Brown, and he himself resided in Majorca, not registered to vote in the UK, stopped the commission from ordering that the money be repaid. The hunt for Michael Brown is ongoing.
On 2 May 2010 at 1:27pm furrynuff wrote:
i am voting labour .....better the devil you know than the one you don.t