´óÏó´«Ã½

Hello Magazine politics reaches a new Nadir....naked attention seeking from the couple least likely to instil confidence in Westminster!

So politicians are concerned that Dear Sally `looks like' a prostitute. How do they know what ladies of the night look like?

Might I remind them of a sentence which includes the words `pot', `kettle' and `black'.

Sally is a bit of a handful but John loves her. They are a rather bizarre pair but sheet or no sheet they enrich our lives.

2..No they don`t enrich my life ...they remind me that this is what we have sunk to...bread and circuses...and don`t tell me not to be so serious...I have a strong sense of humour....but this is no laughing matter....it`s pathetic Stan.

And this tripe about selling our forests is the new foxhunting....a complete red herring because they don`t make any of our serious policies any longer...just act as asset strippers and bailiffs taking us to the cleaners.

Jim

I have to laugh: he is my MP, my representative! I am enjoying the experience because I can't take him seriously. Given the choice of laughing or crying I will take laughter every time.

He is getting anxious about HS2: now that will split the Tories in Buckinghamshire.

MPs could have a better reason to be fed up with scrutiny of their expenses.

Suppose the HMRC were to ask whether their claims were simply and truly 'wholly and exclusively' necessary for their jobs? And suppose any excess paid to them was treated as taxable income?
Do they always actually spend the full amount of their car mileage allowances? Is it really necessary for a back-bencher to have a fully serviced flat in London? Wouldn't a contract with a London Hotel be a more efficient way of staying over-night for up to 160 nights a year in the out-of-season months?
What about the value of the air miles they clock up and the first class rail vouchers given to them as freebies? Aren't those taxable benefits?
And shouldn't all of the capital gains on publicly paid-for housing be paid back in proportion? Are all of their 'phone calls for parliamentary duties?
Yes. We do need to know. And we're delighted they are being more closely scrutinised: we all should be.

( Obliged to re-post here, from ‘web team’ page. [If only for posterity’s sake.] ]



Sally Bercow.

Texted to 61124 ´óÏó´«Ã½ News 24 at 11.05 this morning.



The inordinate and childlike hoo-ha about Ms Bercow just shows how hypocritical and out of touch politicians and some aspects of the media are!

Get real and Get a life!



A couple of further thoughts:

Two thousand and eleven Anno Domini.

Women ..... Chattels?

Chattels ..... Women?

Not!

And what difference does her independence affect the Speaker?

None what-so-ever!


Get real and Get a life!

I wholly agree with the chattels comment. What century do people think we live in? Sally Bercow is not the property of her husband nor is she, by default, the property of her husband's employers either. Given recent events MPs are the last people who should be talking about bringing disrepute to anything. Anyone MP considering using this matter to get rid of the speaker should be barred from voting on the subject since they are clearly not morally fit to make such a decision. Spouses are not property, we do not tolerate slavery in this country, yet the comments of some would seem to cast doubt on that fact.

In an era when a 'career' in politics now seems but a further stepping stone to one in media, it seems a 'work' of genius.

Has to be a shoo-in for many a QT slot, and near guaranteed series on the Breakfast News sofa next to Sian, if not shunting her out.

Market rate TV talents know what gets ratings, and it is not gravitas or intelligence.

Break out the peroxide girls, we have a country to dumb down further!

what's the big deal...she is an attractive women, she is witty she is of independent thought and not a browbeaten 'wife' more power to her, er, leg...

The Bercows - bringing a bit of Berlusconi magic to British politics.

C'mon folks its not been this exciting since we heard that John Major had been snoggin Edwina Currie.

Did I just say that? And I haven't even started my Saturday drinking yet.

Psycho B Delic @ 8: "I wholly agree with the chattels comment. What century do people think we live in? Sally Bercow is not the property of her husband nor is she, by default, the property of her husband's employers either."

Absolutely true; pity she then had to trade on his position and his place of employment in order to feed her attention - seeking behaviour. If hubby wasn't Mr Speaker in our decreasingly esteemed Parliament she would have had to find some other means of drawing attention to herself; she might even have had to rely on her own attributes rather than someone else's.

If expecting some restraint on her conduct on the basis of her husband's position is wrong, so is using her husband's position to feed her own ego.

I detect a whiff of double standards...

What a non story. If an MP's wife wants to do sexy in a photo shoot who cares. Hopefully she'll make some cash that will reduce the temptation to make make spurious expenses claims.

I haven't been thus far able to view the controversial image yet. But I suspect I wouldn't be offended by it. She actually isn't the speaker of the House of Commons is she?

Totally agree with TMR - what a total non story. The only story here is that some MPs seem to have time to worry and comment about such triviality when the country is in the state it is. It would be good if they could concentrate on more important issues like the economy and the sale of our forests, but no they are all too busy scoring cheap political points over their opponents - what a pathetic bunch of 'representatives' we have.

It was completely predicatable that when Cameron said, quite rightly, that we needed to build a Britain that everyone who lived here could embrace as one nation, and that the British taxpayer would no longer fund groups who speak out against the UK or would promote hate against us, that Labour would accuse him of playing the race card.

Why was it not predicatable to the Coalition that the selling off of forests would provoke such strong feelings in people who love this country and its beautiful countryside? This policy has been so poorly communicated to the public it defies belief.

It's about time MPs started to engage their brains and work in the interests of the country.

Which demeans politics ... posing for a cheeky publicity shot or house 'flipping' to avoid CGT and making dubious expense claims?

The BlameGame - Flipping by far. However, I'd argue that what demeans politics far more than either is the petty point scoring that goes on in the interests of one party gaining an extra percentage point in the polls. It's about time that political parties acted in the interest of the nation rather than themselves.