Very few MPs are morons.

I note you didn’t challenge the other half of my statement just there.

I thought I had.

You don’t think his expenses greed makes him self-serving?

There really is.

Aye, one’s red and the other is blue.

Freemarkets, militarism and monarchy.

Choose a colour.

And FYI

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/john-bercow-expenses-claim-chauffeur-journeys

He was clearly taking the piss.

… and so begins the obligatory smear campaign against people we don’t like or perceive as a threat, by desperately dredging up articles from six years ago. You should consider applying for a career as a tabloid journalist.

Maybe he was taking the piss, but then so was almost every other member of the house. You know what the actual issue is here? He was allowed to. Someone somewhere signed off those expenses rather than rejecting them. No-one said it was wrong, no-one told him he couldn’t or shouldn’t, so what we’ve got here is a honey pot. If your boss told you that you had to do a site visit and a limo was an option, would you go “oh no, it’s OK, I’ll walk”?

I get a company car allowance as part of my terms of employment, I haven’t done business miles in probably five years or more. Should I be going to HR asking them to take it off me? Am I taking the piss?

This is the same argument as Amazon / Starbucks et al avoiding paying taxes. They may or may not be bankrupt morally but they’ve done nothing wrong legally. If this is problematic then it’s the law that needs attacking, not the companies.

I thought I had.

You don’t think his expenses greed makes him self-serving?

You challenged the ‘moron’ bit and ignored the ‘self-serving’ part in the same clause, you asserted that most MPs aren’t morons. Why would that be? Do you think most MPs are self-serving?

FFS Cougar you win. Nothing wrong with Bercow’s infamous expenses claims. Thanks for pointing it out in such precise detail.

Hard to argue with such a robust counter-argument.

They may or may not be bankrupt morally but they’ve done nothing wrong legally. If this is problematic then it’s the law that needs attacking, not the companies.

Agree although it is a bit of both. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you have to and that is where the morals come in.
Should I claim this on expenses (tax payers money?) when I could easily take an alternative option?
Would I think better of the person who took an alternative option, yes I would.

All very clear in hindsight. But many professions see their “perks” (see the company car example) as part of their remuneration, and to not take them is viewed as a voluntary pay cut. I would think more of a politician taking a voluntary pay cut, yes, but clear instructions and laws about their “earnings” is the real answer. Including where their money comes from that isn’t from the public purse. That worries me more, to be honest. Who do they work for?

When this was reported on the BBC news they didn’t say one word about his attack on “Johnson” Johnson. They get more blatant as a Tory mouthpiece every day.

Because they know where the money comes from and who holds the purse strings. Why would you _not_ choose to promote the people that hold your existence in their hands?

As for Bercow and expenses… He may be a bully. He may have been taking the piss, he _may_ be untrustworthy because of his decisions to switch parties, BUT… he’s a politician. That comes with an assumption that he’s untrustworthy. His pisstaking is two levels of magnitude lower than the current crop.

Well there’s taking the piss on expenses and there’s systematically dismantling the support systems that vulnerable people depend on and jeopardising the economy we all depend on just to win votes. Which is worse?

If you’re looking for the perfect human being you won’t find one. Everything is a question of motivation.

I would think more of a politician taking a voluntary pay cut,

My understanding is that expenses were used as a covert way of allowing payrises without having to handle the bad PR that an actual payrise might give (especially if they were screwing over nurses/police officers/whoever at the same time).
Which is problematic in the lack of honesty and willingness to argue their case.

As for Bercow switching parties. I cant really see a problem. Peoples views change over time.
I would have a problem if he was still an MP and didnt resign (I know technically they dont but…) and then stand again.
The claims about his history of bullying is far more problematic for me.

He has always been a centrist, he’s at least been rumoured to be switching sides for years, he actually took a small roll in the Brown Government as a Tory MP (possibly to encourage him to switch). I would have been more at home with the Tories under CMD, then Labour under Corbyn, and he’s probably more at home with Labour under Starmer than the Tories under Johnson, especially he’s pretty much enemy No1 over Brexit.

There are few, if any Politicians you can’t find something to point your finger at if you don’t like them, goes with the territory.

Most importantly though, I think this story needs a bit of perspective.

The headlines, and frankly a lot of reports made it sound as if he’d ‘crossed the floor’, but he’s no longer (or not currently at least) a politician. Obviously he’s a key figure in UK politics, even now, but AFAIK all he’s done is joined the Party, as anyone can for £4.42 a month.

I haven’t seen a Labour statement on his joining, there’s been no photo op with Starmer welcoming him into the Club, as for his statements, is he saying anything anyone who isn’t a rabid Brexiteer isn’t thinking already?

He has always been a centrist

He hasnt. He was very hard right when he was younger. His wife seems to have been somewhat of a moderating influence on him.

Maybe “hard centrist” would be more appropriate.

Bercow has always strongly denied that his wife has had any influence on him politically.

Bearing in mind that it is inconceivable that they don’t regularly discuss political issues that claim sounds quite insulting to me.

Perhaps he just can’t bring himself to admit it.

Bercow’s constituency was Buckingham, which was very much Tory Shire-land. Right next door are places like South Northants and Banbury…these are generally moderate, centre right Tories who will listen to Bercow (and by extension folk like Grieve and Soames) who are saying this current Govt aren’t trad Tory, they’re some abhorrent BNP/Tory experimental hybrid that’s got out of control, and the message that he’s saying in the press is aimed squarely at those folk.

He has always been a centrist

No he hasn’t.

Love changed him.

[ I’m not even joking ]

More importantly, the Conservative party has changed. Many people are still voting Tory because they think that is a blip, or just superficial to win votes, or because they fear what other parties would do if they were in power. This needs to change for millions of voters before anything important can change. Bercow gets it.

Bercow has always strongly denied that his wife has had any influence on him politically.

I thought that he claimed that her political opinions were not his political opinions, and visa versa? Did he ever say she didn’t have “any influence”? If so, no one believed that for a second.

He hasnt. He was very hard right when he was younger. His wife seems to have been somewhat of a moderating influence on him.

I haven’t seen any mention of that, and it’s not my recollection, but then I hardly remember him pre speaker days. His Bio reads a little like John Major’s, a Man who seemingly got lost on the way the Labour and joined the Tories by mistake.

Bercow is a former member of the Conservative Monday Club, an organisation which was once highly influential within the Tory Party but so right-wing that today’s Tory Party will have nothing to do with it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/5651054/Speaker-John-Bercow-called-for-assisted-repatriation-of-immigrants.html

Yup, he’s come a long way, and still has some way to go (in my opinion), but we should fully welcome people moving away from the Conservative Party as they get older (rather than the other way around as is too often the case).

Would I think better of the person who took an alternative option, yes I would.

As would I.

But if it’s how the system works, you’re told you can do it and everyone else you’re working with is doing it… you’re on the bus and your colleague is in a limo, I mean, you’d at least get a taxi instead, right?

In the world of Compliance there’s a concept called “the controlling mind.” If say I’m in a position to implement something that breaks GDPR, I complain and the boss goes “don’t care, do it or find another job” then it’s the boss who is culpable, not me.

So is Bercow having a laugh with his limos, or has he simply been told he can do it? Is it part of the job package? Who’s culpable here? Because:

many professions see their “perks” (see the company car example) as part of their remuneration, and to not take them is viewed as a voluntary pay cut.

Exactly this.

I was provided with a company car when I joined my current company almost 15 years ago, at the time it was essential for the job but it was also part of the remuneration package that was offered to me. As time went on policies changed and my role changed and you were only entitled to a company car if you did several thousand company miles per year, otherwise you were moved to a car allowance. I think in the year they changed it I’d done about 200 company miles. Today, even being in atypical circumstances I can’t remember when I last did business miles, I’ve been into the office (15 minutes away) maybe three times in the last 18 months. Yet I still have a car allowance because it is part of my contract. Am I taking the piss, should I hand it back?

There are few, if any Politicians you can’t find something to point your finger at if you don’t like them, goes with the territory.

This is very true.

Tuition fees, Iraq war, eating a bacon sandwich FFS. Thatcher Thatcher Milk Snatcher.

The tabloids have, ahem, dined out on this for years.

Oh, yeah, on expenses:

I have a good friend who is a SAP consultant. His base salary is somewhere between 50 and 100% greater than mine and he earns the same again in bonuses and overtime. I don’t know for certain but I suspect that if he’s not into a six figure salary by now then he’s very close.

When working away, like pretty much everyone else who works away he gets expenses which are precisely defined by HR. If you work more than X hours or from this time to that time then we’ll pay for lunch up to a given value, sort of thing (I have no idea what his exact clauses are, I don’t know what mine are even).

To Ste’s mind this is part of his salary, it’s compensation for having to hit the road rather than be at home. If he is afforded £10 for lunch and he buys a sandwich and a coffee for £6, then he’s £4 out of pocket and over time that adds up. So he’ll stuff his pockets with crisps and biscuits and if he’s under like £9.90 in spends he’ll consider it a failure.

Is that much different from my car allowance?

Is that much different from Bercow’s limo?

It’s economies of scale, isn’t it. “John Bercow buys a bag of Walkers salt & vinegar on expenses” wouldn’t make headline news* but it’s the same basic principle. He’s allowed to and that’s the real problem.

(* – saying that, the headline on the Star at the weekend was some woman saying her alien boyfriend was far better than any Earthling lover she’d ever had, so who the **** knows what’s newsworthy any more)

Rich, privileged, influential right winger joins Labour. That’s right up Starmer’s alley.

NeoLabour: For the Few; **** the Many.

Rich, privileged, influential right winger joins Labour. That’s right up Starmer’s alley.

NeoLabour: For the Few; **** the Many.

Labour supporters just love never having a chance of power, all that high ground and no actual responsibility.

Labour supporters just love never having a chance of power, all that high ground and no actual responsibility.

That doesn’t fit with the Labour supporters on this forum, oh wait…

Labour supporters just love never having a chance of power, all that high ground and no actual responsibility.

I’m not a Labour supporter or voter. So your point was…?

I’m not a Labour supporter or voter. So your point was…?

My apologies, it was the kind of thing the comrades like to sling at each other over on the Starmer/Corbyn threads

My apologies

This is becoming a regular occurrence on here, people apologising to me. 😀

Probably because you seem a bit touchy. Apologies in advance.

Apology accepted. See; feels better now, doesn’t it? Well done.

I wasn’t really aware of his existence before brexit, as I’d childishly assumed the speaker of the house was somehow mutually/neutrally appointed and not a party member.

Dunno about bullying, but he, as a tory, gave cameron, may, and johnson, an incredibly hard time about thier multiple ‘just about legal, but in bad faith’ abuses of parlimentary process.

Ultimatley the huge conservative MP majority in parliament made the role of speaker of the house pretty much redundant. It showed that with a big majority, matters can easily be fillirbusted (sp?), a bill can be bounced back and fourth between the commons and the lords, but utimatley, law is decided by a commons majority.

Just look at the current speaker, he makes the right noises, however MPs just pretend to take him seriously as a moderator verbally, but basicaly just sneer at him in thier actions.

Speaker of the house should be feared, like the ‘ref’ is feared in football. If you play dirty, you’ll get a yellow card or a red card and ulimatley banned if you don’t play fair. No such controls exist in UK parliment.

all that high ground

A fair point. You don’t need to occupy the high ground to be supportive of a politician who has a reputation of being a greedy bully who dislikes scrutiny.

In fact all you need to do is to apply a certain standard of acceptable behaviour to politicians that you support, and a different standard of acceptable behaviour to politicians that you don’t support.

It’s just basic party politics.

The great thing about the Bercow effect is that it is now no longer automatic for a former Speaker to receive his/her ermine, the House of Lords Conduct Committee will now first scrutinise their past behaviour.

Limos when a taxi, tube, walking etc is possible is 100% taking the piss.

Limos when a taxi, tube, walking etc is possible is 100% taking the piss.

I think you need some perspective. I quite often use taxis as I don’t want to walk through dodgy areas when I want to go home.

In fact all you need to do is to apply a certain standard of acceptable behaviour to politicians that you support, and a different standard of acceptable behaviour to politicians that you don’t support.

And because of his poor past actions you are completely unable to support his current ones?

Yes Taxi is ok, limo is not.

Limo is taking the piss!

because of his poor past actions you are completely unable to support his current ones?

That I believe was the way that the House of Lords Conduct Committee saw it.

Of course if Bercow had nothing to hide, as he claimed, then he wouldn’t have objected to a probe by the Commons Standards Committee into the bullying claims made against him, and his name would have been cleared.

The House of Lords Conduct Committee decided that the allegations made against were too serious to ignore.

For a man who so clearly wants a peerage it is surprising that he didn’t seize the opportunity to clear his name.

Bercow is clearly a man who does not relish scrutiny. Accountability of politicians is a vital prerequisite for good governance.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/john-bercow-accused-of-covering-up-scale-of-westminster-alcohol-problems-a3146706.html

Quote :

The same loophole was used three years ago to avoid revealing details of Mr Bercow’s tax bill for his grace-and-favour residence, which had been requested under FOI by the Press Association.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said Mr Bercow appeared to be “avoiding scrutiny” to prevent damage to the reputation of MPs.

I wonder how many here are concerned about the damage to the good reputation of MPs?

Maybe just the ones who aren’t Tories?