Thieves, thieves, traMPs and thieves...


In the latest crackdown on the collection of thieves and fraudsters that infest the House of Commons, Sir Christopher 'to-be-found-dead-in-a-wood-soon' Kelly will announce that MP's can no longer 'employ' their spouses or children.

This is a bit of a blow to the 200 - fucking 200! - MP's who currently do exactly that.

That's right; 200 MP's, not content with their own salary and expenses, help themselves to a bit more of our money, and pass it to other members of their families.

The most famous, and most egregious of recent times, is Derek 'the Conman' Conway. That arch trougher had to pay back thousands of fucking pounds after an inquiry stated that there was

"..no evidence that his two sons had worked for salaries they were paid from the public purse"

That's a nice way of putting it, isn't it? We'd all be a lot harder on a traditional benefit fraudster, who had, say, 'no evidence' of a bad back, wouldn't we?

That bastard would be - rightly - identified as thief, derided by the press, dragged into court and could well end up banged up. So why not Derek Conman? And why, when he was found to have squirmed through this loophole, was it not closed up. Why now, months later?

And of course, no discussion on expenses, particularly on expenses for spouses, would be complete without a mention of Jacqui Smith, would it? She paid her husband handsomely with our money, and he in turn repaid us by jizzing all over the soft furnishings we'd bought him, like some sort of over-entitled chimpanzee.

So, yes, Sir Christopher, you tell them they can't carry on and ...  What? What's that? Oh for fuck's sake.

The crooks are ahead of us. Before this change is even announced, the fucking thieves have worked out a way around it.

They've told the Telegraph about their cunning plan:

"The wives, husbands and other family members currently employed at the tax-payers' expense plan to apply for jobs with other MPs as a way of dodging the guidelines"

Oh for Christ's sake.  That's not even cunning. That's just fucking blatant. That's taking the piss. Taking the piss on an epic scale. Taking the piss in a fucking enormous ocean-going urine-removal vessel.


How much contempt do these greedy, thieving, troughing bastards hold us in, if they think they can get away with a pathetic fucking trick like that? How stupid do they think we are? Plenty.


And how weak and utterly fucking feeble will Kelly, Legg, Bumptious Bercow and McBroon look if they actually let this happen? Completely.


And how surprised, astonished, amazed, will we be when, in spite of an uproar of protest from the taxpaying public, this particular rule is quietly dropped?

Not very...


_

17 comments:

Captain Haddock said...

These incompetent, overpaid, under-employed fools consistently fail to see that they're digging their own graves ..

Parliament must now be cleansed .. root & branch ..

We simply cannot afford to go on like this ..

Anonymous said...

Actually whilst I object to all the expense fiddling it often does make sense to employ one's spouse for instance, they often do a very good job and are available 24/7.

Banning employment like this punishes the innocent ones who were actually doing a good job.

captainff said...

If you had to pick someone to run your office who you could trust implicitly from the outset who better than your spouse?

Yes, there have been examples of taking the piss and they should be dealt with.

Constantly Furious said...

"If you had to pick someone to run your office who you could trust implicitly from the outset who better than your spouse?"

I trust my missus completely, but that's not the same as thinking she'd make a good PA for me. She'd no more make a good PA than she'd make a good rugby player.

And yet, if I were an MP, I could pay her the going rate, using taxpayers' money, to do a job that endless others could do better.

Do you really think that all 200 spouses have the qualifications, the skills and the experience to act in this role?

Of course they don't. The majority got the job through a combination of nepotism and spousal greed.

_

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Undoubtedly some MPs have abused the system by employing family members and people like Derek Conway should be prosecuted for blatant fraud. But not all spouses have abused the system.

My former MP employed his wife as his secretary and she remained in post after their divorce. He retired at the last election but his ex-wife has continued as secretary to the new MP. Over 30 years she has built up a wealth of knowledge that is invaluable to constituents and the MP alike. It would be a shame if such skills were lost just because of the greedy bastards who took advantage.

It surely cannot be beyond our capabilities to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Henry Crun said...

Captainff, my missus is very good at the job she does as a PA.

Would I employ her to be my PA? Not a fucking chance...she be nagging me to get on with all the stuff I hate doing and would refuse to make a cup of tea because "it's your turn, I made tea this morning".

And she'd make me eat healthy stuff for lunch instead of the Cheese and Onion crisps butty I had today.

And if I pissed her off at work, there'd be no ess ee ex later on.

Anonymous said...

If John Prescott had employed his missus then he could have at least shagged one member of his staff without to much of a fuss .

JuliaM said...

"It surely cannot be beyond our capabilities to sort the wheat from the chaff."

It wouldn't be, if we hadn't slowly, over the last few years, replaced judgement with lists and blanket rules...

Captain Haddock said...

Your point raises another Julia ..

Slightly O/T .. but what about this LOOB about the next Census, asking the names, ages & gender of any overnight visitors ?

I've got a good mind to put down that I had 5,000 round my gaff that night (not enough space on the form to list 'em all, honest) .. cos I'd got a couple of kippers & a bag of rolls in .. and that I'm the Son of God and they can mind their own business, or be damned forever ..

Let 'em try to prove differently .. Hee hee ..

Rose said...

I really don't see why you all think its any of your business who works for an MP. You elected the MP - you don't have to keep telling him/her what to do or how to behave every day do you? If you don't like him/her you shouldnt have voted for him/her in the first place. If you voted for him/her then let him/her get on with the job!!

Captain Haddock said...

Hi Rose ..

And which MP are you married to pray ????

killemallletgodsortemout said...

Rose.

It IS our business who works for an MP.

We pay for the workers and for the MPs. In return, they are supposed to work for, and be accountable to US.


Oh, dear.

Captain Haddock said...

I think poor old "Rose" stumbled into the wrong Blog by mistake ..

She ought to stick to the Knitting Circle or Embroidery ... PMSL

That or tell her Husband & his mates to stop acting like a cabal of Medieval Robber Barons (the very same whose activities Magna Carta was created to curtail) ..

Imagining they are somehow "special" & above the Law, whilst grinding the "peasants" faces into the mud .. and who when caught out, change the Law or the "Rules" to suit them ..

caesars wife said...

aw come on when your an mp you need a confidential PA and theres the weird hours they do (although they do get good holidays)

I dont have a problem with employing a spouse so long as its clear what is being paid and perhaps even a standard pay .

I do have a problem with family enterague doing non jobs and shaking hands with special people and getting interns that ordinary person would never get chance of.

same goes for aljabeeba how come dg on 800k thinks its no problem to employ another 60 on over 100k let alone pay stars weird rates.

it sucks but i have some sympathy for those mps who do the job and would like wife near them.

Jill said...

I can see an argument for MPs' wives as PAs. Unfortunately, since public trust has been eroded to the point it's nigh-on extinct, and since it was the MPs, not the public, who did the eroding, I think it's tough fuck and they'll have to suck it up.

Anonymous said...

They really shouldn't do this. Any advantages of employing members of each other MPs families would (rightly or wrongly)cause outrage.

banned said...

"...he in turn repaid us by jizzing all over the soft furnishings we'd bought him, like some sort of over-entitled chimpanzee".
Brilliant, had me in stitches over breakfast.

This wifey swapping lark, would that be like Swinging or more akin to Dogging ? ( Google with caution )