The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => The Commons => Topic started by: Barman on July 19, 2013, 10:14:36 AM
-
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) – the body charged with administering expenses for MPs and their staff – has surpassed itself in what appears to be an effort to lose any remaining shreds of credibility.
It emerged over the weekend that IPSA’s board came up with its proposals to hike MPs’ pay while luxuriating on a two-day “away day” at a plush Surrey hotel boasting “sumptuous surroundings”, an “exquisite restaurant” and an 18-hole championship level golf course.
In its 2011/12 Annual Report, IPSA stated that one of its key aims going forward was to “bring down our operational costs… without compromising public trust”.
While we are yet to discover exactly how much IPSA has billed taxpayers for the caper, there is no question that they have compromised public trust with this unnecessary and wasteful expedition.
What possible justification could this unaccountable quango have for holding its deliberations at the Selsdon Park Hotel? A spokesman for IPSA told the Sunday Telegraph was that it was “important for the board to meet off-site to consider these proposals.”
WHY?? What’s wrong with meeting in IPSA’s offices in Westminster?
The IPSA spokesman even deigned to suggest that Selsdon Park was offering best value for money because they had explored more expensive options.
IPSA has come in for criticism before over its running costs, which have led me to accuse it of being a “bureaucratic monster of a quango”.
But the decision to head to a luxury hotel to discuss MPs’ pay means that the body has now lost any sense of moral authority to safeguard taxpayers’ money.
Clicky! (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2013/07/ipsa-compromised-public-trust-lost-moral-authority-safeguard-taxpayers-money.html) cussing:
-
Why am I not surprised? noooo:
-
noooo: noooo: noooo: noooo:
-
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) – the body charged with administering expenses for MPs and their staff – has surpassed itself in what appears to be an effort to lose any remaining shreds of credibility.
It emerged over the weekend that IPSA’s board came up with its proposals to hike MPs’ pay while luxuriating on a two-day “away day” at a plush Surrey hotel boasting “sumptuous surroundings”, an “exquisite restaurant” and an 18-hole championship level golf course.
In its 2011/12 Annual Report, IPSA stated that one of its key aims going forward was to “bring down our operational costs… without compromising public trust”.
While we are yet to discover exactly how much IPSA has billed taxpayers for the caper, there is no question that they have compromised public trust with this unnecessary and wasteful expedition.
What possible justification could this unaccountable quango have for holding its deliberations at the Selsdon Park Hotel? A spokesman for IPSA told the Sunday Telegraph was that it was “important for the board to meet off-site to consider these proposals.”
WHY?? What’s wrong with meeting in IPSA’s offices in Westminster?
The IPSA spokesman even deigned to suggest that Selsdon Park was offering best value for money because they had explored more expensive options.
IPSA has come in for criticism before over its running costs, which have led me to accuse it of being a “bureaucratic monster of a quango”.
But the decision to head to a luxury hotel to discuss MPs’ pay means that the body has now lost any sense of moral authority to safeguard taxpayers’ money.
Clicky! (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2013/07/ipsa-compromised-public-trust-lost-moral-authority-safeguard-taxpayers-money.html) cussing:
Makes my blood boil ... I can understand the need to be off site but why not a hired meeting room nearby no need to stay somewhere and If for some unknown reason there is a need then a budget hotel with function / meeting facilities should suffice ... That is what the rest of us mere mortals need to do but... oh no were are just the tw#ts paying for it...
censored: censored: censored:
-
Sorry but maybe the tax payers alliance are too easily outraged, far be it for me to suggest they are shamelessly attention seeking.
Just checked (http://www.principal-hayley.com/book-a-bedroom.aspx) and you can walk in that hotel right now and get a double room for £90. Not a lot nowadays.
Hopefully we can bill the TPA for the cost of preparing the answers they demand in detail so regularly. It'd be hypocritical of the TPA to refuse.
-
Sorry but maybe the tax payers alliance are too easily outraged, far be it for me to suggest they are shamelessly attention seeking.
Just checked (http://www.principal-hayley.com/book-a-bedroom.aspx) and you can walk in that hotel right now and get a double room for £90. Not a lot nowadays.
Hopefully we can bill the TPA for the cost of preparing the answers they demand in detail so regularly. It'd be hypocritical of the TPA to refuse.
But why do they need a two-day beano off-site to discuss what should be part of their every-day remit?
Why can't they do the same as almost every other business - sit in the board room and get sarnies brought in...?
-
Does IPSA have a boardroom as such? I doubt it has a conference room big enough for all the people they needed for that decision.
Even if it did, offsite meetings are fairly standard fare for organisations wanting to make important decisions. Way too many interruptions, way too many "I just need to pop out for for a quick meeting", way too many waiting for X and Y to turn up because someone nabbed them in the corridor, way too many "I have to leave at 5 cos . . . .".
Offsite meetings just work (well mostly). 2 days in a room, one overnight stay. One late meal on day one to heal over the arguments of the preceding day's work.
-
Does IPSA have a boardroom as such? I doubt it has a conference room big enough for all the people they needed for that decision.
Even if it did, offsite meetings are fairly standard fare for organisations wanting to make important decisions. Way too many interruptions, way too many "I just need to pop out for for a quick meeting", way too many waiting for X and Y to turn up because someone nabbed them in the corridor, way too many "I have to leave at 5 cos . . . .".
Offsite meetings just work (well mostly). 2 days in a room, one overnight stay. One late meal on day one to heal over the arguments of the preceding day's work.
No meeting rooms in for instance.... The Houses of Parliament...?
They seem to squeeze in all those select committees plus they are fully catered....
-
IIRC they'd have to pay for meeting rooms there and there are very few rooms there offering the required lack of interruptions. And then of course it's far more expensive forattendees to stay over and eat in London.
The TPA is just wild arse guessing and we will have to pay for their little games.
-
Bollocks! It's just another example of "Snouts in the Trough"!
-
Bollocks! It's just another example of "Snouts in the Trough"!
:thumbsup:
-
One might write to them whistle:
compliance@parliamentarystandards.org.uk
-
Bollocks! It's just another example of "Snouts in the Trough"!
Why of course, if you want it to be true it must be true
Just like Cameron Diaz coming round later for a spot of 'fun'
-
One might write to them whistle:
compliance@parliamentarystandards.org.uk
One might indeed, and exactly, pray, how much notice are they likely to take?
IMO, 7 tenths of FA!
-
Bollocks! It's just another example of "Snouts in the Trough"!
Why of course, if you want it to be true it must be true
Just like Cameron Diaz coming round later for a spot of 'fun'
Say hello from me :thumbsup: Mrs K off out then ;)
-
Bollocks! It's just another example of "Snouts in the Trough"!
Why of course, if you want it to be true it must be true
Just like Cameron Diaz coming round later for a spot of 'fun'
Say hello from me :thumbsup: Mrs K off out then ;)
Seems Ms Diaz has blanked me out - yet again!!!
Prolly for the best, Mrs K having bought even more hi tech (and looking painful if inserted) knitting needles today
-
Another example of money grabbing politicians which does beg the question how much money has made in into party coffers that was meant for the government at that time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html)
-
Another example of money grabbing politicians which does beg the question how much money has made in into party coffers that was meant for the government at that time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html)
Indeed.... weren't they quick to trouser the munny..... noooo:
-
Another example of money grabbing politicians which does beg the question how much money has made in into party coffers that was meant for the government at that time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html)
Indeed.... weren't they quick to trouser the munny..... noooo:
And you wouldn't?
It was the Executors of the will that effed it up. They said it said to go to whoever is in government but it didn't, it said to go to "whichever government is in office at the date of my death for the government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit".
In a statement on Wednesday Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".
"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.
-
Another example of money grabbing politicians which does beg the question how much money has made in into party coffers that was meant for the government at that time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10242041/Coalition-parties-to-give-520k-spinster-donation-to-Treasury.html)
Indeed.... weren't they quick to trouser the munny..... noooo:
And you wouldn't?
It was the Executors of the will that effed it up. They said it said to go to whoever is in government but it didn't, it said to go to "whichever government is in office at the date of my death for the government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit".
In a statement on Wednesday Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".
"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.
Oh noes... angel1
-
. . .
Oh noes... angel1
lol:
yeah as if
-
I have to admit I'm wondering if the will wasn't made deliberately vague to show exactly what sort of people we have running this circus.
-
Right thought wrong target imho
IMHO the question to ask is to the solicitors "if she made it so clear that the money was to go to a political party, why did you write the will for her so it actually goes to the Treasury"
Whatever the true answer to that is, I suspect it will not be disconnected from the fact that the longer it takes to resolve something the richer solicitors get.
-
Right thought wrong target imho
IMHO the question to ask is to the solicitors "if she made it so clear that the money was to go to a political party, why did you write the will for her so it actually goes to the Treasury"
Whatever the true answer to that is, I suspect it will not be disconnected from the fact that the longer it takes to resolve something the richer solicitors get.
Quite so. cussing:
-
I have to admit I'm wondering if the will wasn't made deliberately vague to show exactly what sort of people we have running this circus.
:thumbsup: