All in this together?

Author
Discussion

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

249 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Should Senior Members of the Government be showing conspicuous restraint in their private lifestyles, as requested by the P.M. Or is it unreasonable to expect such restrained behaviour by individuals regardless of their public position.?

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

290 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
What sort of restraint? Handcuffs and the like?

eccles

13,802 posts

228 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

eccles

13,802 posts

228 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
What sort of restraint? Handcuffs and the like?
The Lib-Dems might need a bit of instruction from the Tories on that point.... biggrin

Jasandjules

70,474 posts

235 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
eccles said:
It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.
Yes, you would like to think that they would be smart enough to not be indulging to excess.....

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

252 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
“We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared; and we shall have that confidence only if there are signs that everyone is committed to their neighbour, that no-one is just forgotten, that no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out.”

“That confidence isn’t in huge supply at the moment, given the massive crises of trust that have shaken us all in the last couple of years and the lasting sense that the most prosperous have yet to shoulder their load.”

The Arch B of C

turbobloke

107,388 posts

266 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
If there was uniform self-restraint from Coalition MPs it would spoil a few headlines and strangle some chippy articles at birth as seen recently over Zak and The Boy George - although CMD usually gets a mention for not belugaring off to Thailand.

pacman1

7,323 posts

199 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
As if on cue, enter the wail..

turbobloke

107,388 posts

266 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
“We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared; and we shall have that confidence only if there are signs that everyone is committed to their neighbour, that no-one is just forgotten, that no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out.”

“That confidence isn’t in huge supply at the moment, given the massive crises of trust that have shaken us all in the last couple of years and the lasting sense that the most prosperous have yet to shoulder their load.”

The Arch B of C
Would that be the Arch Broadcaster of Communism wink

Williams has been emitting various degrees of anti-capitalist information pollution from his episcopal motormouth for some time.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2174086/dr-...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/2172131/face...

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

170 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
I think he meant "your all in this together"

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,523 posts

241 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
johnxjsc1985 said:
I think he meant "your all in this together"
or even possibly you're all in this together? biggrin

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

170 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
I think he meant "your all in this together"
or even possibly you're all in this together? biggrin
Or you are all in this together.drink

off_again

12,891 posts

240 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....

We elected these people to be our representatives in government (though we didnt quite elect a the current joint parliament), and if they choose to spend some money in the time that they are not directly working then fine. I suspect their jobs are quite stressful and they are entitled to a little time off and a holiday.

Though to be fair, my wifes boss is going on a holiday to the US theme parks in 5 months. Not an extravant thing, but when you add up the flights, theme park passes and accomodation for 4, it comes to just under £8k - sounds a lot and it is, but it does quickly add up and that was on a discount! So it would be easy to burn money on a nice holiday.

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

290 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
off_again said:
Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....
...because 50% of the electorate are of below-average intelligence.

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,523 posts

241 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
off_again said:
Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....
...because 50% of the electorate are of below-average intelligence.
Isn't 50% of anything below average? On average. wobble

Rocksteadyeddie

7,971 posts

233 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
pacman1 said:
As if on cue, enter the wail..
Dear God. Who on earth voted for Zac Goldsmith? Seriously?!?!

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

290 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
HundredthIdiot said:
off_again said:
Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....
...because 50% of the electorate are of below-average intelligence.
Isn't 50% of anything below average? On average. wobble
That's mean.

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,523 posts

241 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
HundredthIdiot said:
off_again said:
Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....
...because 50% of the electorate are of below-average intelligence.
Isn't 50% of anything below average? On average. wobble
That's mean.
hehe

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

249 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Notice I used the word conspicuous in my opening. With Cameron anxious about the image of the Conservatives (publicly) I would think a few Senior Members may have a few choice words whispered in their lugholes. Can't blame these people for enjoying their wealth but it irks somewhat. See what 'The Guardian' has to say.

pacman1

7,323 posts

199 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Rocksteadyeddie said:
pacman1 said:
As if on cue, enter the wail..
Dear God. Who on earth voted for Zac Goldsmith? Seriously?!?!
People with more money than sense! wink