Cleggie cleans up

[Sam Slater]

[quote]whilst getting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers euros...[/quote]

'Hundreds of thousands' is plural. Sorry to be pedantic but his total claims over 4 years didn't amount to two hundred thousand. And only part of that total was for accommodation.

And none of this is proven, by the way.

Note the following paragraphs:

"Open Europe said tonight: "Unless Clegg can show that he kept this allowance completely separate from his 'private income' by literally having two separate bank accounts and keeping the two pots of money separate ? he most likely used the allowances (at the very least the daily allowance) to pay off the mortgage and to buy the house.

"If he spent his allowances on the house in any way ? which is highly likely ? he is guilty of exactly the same practice (selling a house for profit at the taxpayers' expense) which he criticises MPs for."

Is your whole point here based on the phrases 'he most likely used' and 'which is highly likely'?

I hope you never get called up for jury service!

[David Johnson]

" an not an expert on Liberal politics as you seem to imply you are, David,
and you clearly know your stuff, apparently, on what Mr Clegg has been
doing with his money. Either you read the Daily Mail avidly or are in
cahoots with his banker or someone powerful in Brussels.....

Err, maybe you should have read the rest of the thread?

I was repeating a story about his house buying and selling which appeared in the Guardian and all the major newspapers across the political spectrum.

"Either you read the Daily Mail avidly or are in
cahoots with his banker or someone powerful in Brussels"

None of these are the case (see above).

"My point is this - before attacking the guy on what he may or may not
have done as part of the "black economy" (your words)"

Not my words at all. I am not saying that he has anything to do at all with the black economy. The reference of the black economy purely refers to Greece.


D

[David Johnson]

"'Hundreds of thousands' is plural. Sorry to be pedantic but his total claims over 4 years didn't amount to two hundred thousand. And only part of that total was for accommodation."

Hundreds of thousands is plural is it?

The story includes the following
"Open Europe claim between 1994 and 2004 in addition to his basic salary and various other allowances, Clegg would first as a commission official and then an MEP receive roughly ?278,346 in allowances meant to cover living and housing costs while serving in Brussels. No receipts are required to cover these allowances" You used the first figure in the report. I used the second.

Money out
"Clegg owned the Brussels home at Rue Americaine between 2001 and 2005 while he was an MEP, selling the home at a profit of ?360,000 in 2005, then worth about ?240,000"

Money in
278,346 euros in allowances meant to cover living and housing costs while in Brussels.

Given that Clegg received a substantial amount of money to cover accommodation (claimable without receipts) from the taxpayer, made a huge profit on the house sale which he lived in whilst receiving these accommodation expenses, do you think it is in anyway hypocritical of Clegg to then state "It isn't right that taxpayers foot the bill for properties that could potentially yield politicians huge capital gains?"

Yes or no?

"Is your whole point here based on the phrases 'he most likely used' and 'which is highly likely'?

Clearly not. See section on Money in, money out and the fact that no receipts were required to cover the allowances.

"I hope you never get called up for jury service!"

Rank hypocrisy is not a criminal offence. As the Lib Dems said, in the classic defence of so many MPs, "it was all within the rules"

I note that in the new rules for the House of Commons, expenses can only be used for rented property to avoid the situation where the taxpayer either directly or indirectly funds huge house sale profits.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

What do you reckon on the following?

Stupid smears or case to answer for someone who appears to like take the moral high ground and condemn the old, corrupt and discredited Labour and Tory parties?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Zfk_lu ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWlIqRNt ... re=related

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... tions.html

CHeers
D

[David Johnson]

As you know the Blessed Cleggie rode the EU gravy train for 10 years. Before he returned to the UK to lecture the Labour and Tory parties about the evils of the expenses system.

Here is a heartwarming story about how the EU expenses work. Makes the Westminster expenses scandal look like taking a few pennies from the wishing well. Eh?

"Swedish MEP gives away ?70,000 surplus from lavish EU expenses n protest against the current system in the European Parliament, whereby members get paid flat-rate allowances, rather than allowances based on the documented cost for travel, offices and other expenses, Swedish MEP Jens Holm has given away around ?70,000 in EU allowances to charities. According to his blog, between 2006 and 2008 alone, Holm received ?158,708 in travel expenses from the European Parliament. During this time, he gave any unspent travel expenses to charity. Keeping all the receipts from his travels, Holm calculated that approximately ?70,000 was not spent on any trips, which he has given to charities on a running basis. Holm's colleague from the Swedish Left Party, MEP Eva-Britt Svensson, is said to employ a similar policy. "

Oh to hear the Blessed Cleggie give another speech about the horrors of the corrupt, old style Labour and Conservatives whilst regularly claiming more in MP expenses than Brown and Cameron. Hardly the hairshirt approach?

Such hypocrisy! You can almost smell it.

D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Hundreds of thousands is plural is it?[/quote]

Errrr.....yes. That's what I said and why you was exaggerating. You said he claimed 'hundreds of thousands' when he claimed around ?160,000 over 4 years. 'Hundreds of thousands' means more than two-hundred thousand. Pedantic, I know, but correct.

[quote]The story includes the following
"Open Europe claim between 1994 and 2004 in addition to his basic salary and various other allowances, Clegg would first as a commission official and then an MEP receive roughly ?278,346 in allowances meant to cover living and housing costs while serving in Brussels. No receipts are required to cover these allowances" You used the first figure in the report. I used the second.[/quote]

I used the first figure because that was the figure the total expenses amounted to for the duration of the mortgage. That was your original point if I'm not mistaken? You specifically alluded to his criticism of other MPs who use expenses to pay for mortgages and then sell the properties for profit, right? So giving prominence to the second, higher figure in this debate could be seen as an attempt to mislead. Not that I'm thinking that of you! !wink!

[quote]Money out
"Clegg owned the Brussels home at Rue Americaine between 2001 and 2005 while he was an MEP, selling the home at a profit of ?360,000 in 2005, then worth about ?240,000"

Money in
278,346 euros in allowances meant to cover living and housing costs while in Brussels.[/quote]

Ah, that's much clearer. You weren't trying to mislead us after all. Still, I think you know the old adage about throwing enough mud...!happy! Now, to clarify, are you questioning his profit on that house between 2001 and 2004 or have you other houses and landlord's statements surrounding rent costs going back a further 8 years? What isn't clear is if solicitor's fees and interest was taken into account when working out that profit. Did he pay off the mortgage fully before he sold it or was there still an outstanding balance? If he paid it off early was there any charge from the bank? And let's remember that it was a joint mortgage so any profit must be split between them. We don't know how much she contributed to the mortgage after all so I'm assuming it was 50/50, new-aged man that I am!

[quote]Given that Clegg received a substantial amount of money to cover accommodation (claimable without receipts) from the taxpayer, made a huge profit on the house sale which he lived in whilst receiving these accommodation expenses, do you think it is in anyway hypocritical of Clegg to then state "It isn't right that taxpayers foot the bill for properties that could potentially yield politicians huge capital gains?"[/quote]

Well, it would be hypocritical if it's proven he used expenses to pay for the mortgage, yes. I have no problem with labelling him so if it all turns out that is what happened. For now, though, you just have terminology like "This means it's likely he made personal profits..." and "he most likely used the allowances...".

Since he wasn't ordered to keep receipts and since he couldn't have foreseen an expenses scandal like we had 9-5 years into the future I think it would be unfair to assume him guilty of any wrongdoing. Be it legally or ethically.

[quote]I note that in the new rules for the House of Commons, expenses can only be used for rented property to avoid the situation where the taxpayer either directly or indirectly funds huge house sale profits.[/quote]

Now, here I agree with you.

[David Johnson]

"I used the first figure because that was the figure the total expenses amounted to for the duration of the mortgage. That was your original point if I'm not mistaken? You specifically alluded to his criticism of other MPs who use expenses to pay for mortgages and then sell the properties for profit, right? So giving prominence to the second, higher figure in this debate could be seen as an attempt to mislead. Not that I'm thinking that of you!"

Of course not. I wouldn't dream of attempting to mislead. I am no politician!

However, he was the recipient of unreceipted expenses to the value of 278,000 euros paid for living and housing costs whilst in Brussels. If you look at the message, the EU gravy train you can see the sort of profits that are regularly made from unreceipted expenses.

Do I know if money saved on EU expenses prior to the purchase of a house in Brussels in 2001 was used to purchase a house in Brussels. No I don't.

Do I know that Clegg unlike the Swedish person in the EU gravy train made the most of his expenses "opportunities", yes I do. Clegg has already admitted travelling with the likes of Easyjet/Ryanair and then getting the value of business flights in expenses from the taxpayer which he funnelled elsewhere, his office apparently. Though there is no way of checking this.

What has not been refuted in any shape or form by either Clegg or the Lib Dems are the following aspects of this story:
1. Clegg made a profit of over 300,000 euros on a house he bought in 2001 and sold soon after he stopped being an MEP
2. During that time he was receiving up to ?161,358 in allowances, meant to cover a range of expenses including, specifically, accommodation for the days he spent in Brussels. And that the allowance for the days in Brussels was circa 250 euros a day.

I take your point about the paraphenalia of buying and selling houses as a given.

The question that neither Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems nor your good self have attempted to explain is what the obviously large amount of money claimed for living accommodation specifically in Brussels during the period of 2001-2004 was actually spent on? Wouldnt you have thought it relatively easy for Clegg to explain this when the story went everywhere last week?

Any ideas?

Secondly I would also suggest you look at the links in Sam2 and the text in EU gravy train.

And in addition, please have a glance at the Daily Telegraph story that came out at the same time that this paper gave a bashing to politicians across all mainstream parties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... enses.html

This shows that Clegg regularly claimed the maximum allowed under mps' allowance for second homes.

Sam, if you put all these stories together, and then choose to give him the benefit of the doubt re. the Brussels house on the basis that unreceipted expenses allows you to get away with pretty much anything you are still left with the following:

1. A man who left the EU gravy train and got a job as a lobbyist for about a year. Presumably using his political contacts to further the likes of his clients such as BG.
2. Made absolutely no mention of this in his CV.
3. Had money paid directly into his personal account from three different donors for a year. Hasnt this guy heard of business accounts?
4. Regularly pushed the limit of what it was possible to claim for MP expenses for a second home whilst taking the moral high ground re. expenses.

In comparison with the likes of Chris Mullin and the Swedish guy in the EU who gave his expenses profits to charity, do you think that Clegg has the right to take the holier than thou attitude about politics and ask people to vote for him so we can get away from the corrupt expenses policies of Labour and COnservatives.

Personally I dont. He's a fucking hypocrite!

Cheers
David

[Sam Slater]

[quote]However, he was the recipient of unreceipted expenses to the value of 278,000 euros paid for living and housing costs whilst in Brussels. If you look at the message, the EU gravy train you can see the sort of profits that are regularly made from unreceipted expenses.[/quote]

I'm not saying Euro politicians aren't on a good screw, I was just pointing out that if you want to point out Clegg's claiming expenses while making a profit on a house, then any expenses claimed before buying the house is a separate point.

[quote]Do I know that Clegg unlike the Swedish person in the EU gravy train made the most of his expenses "opportunities", yes I do. Clegg has already admitted travelling with the likes of Easyjet/Ryanair and then getting the value of business flights in expenses from the taxpayer which he funnelled elsewhere, his office apparently. Though there is no way of checking this.[/quote]

His office? So it went back into his work then? Sounds reasonable. But, good on the Swede. I have no problem saying the Swede sounds like a decent guy.

[quote]What has not been refuted in any shape or form by either Clegg or the Lib Dems are the following aspects of this story:
1. Clegg made a profit of over 300,000 euros on a house he bought in 2001 and sold soon after he stopped being an MEP
2. During that time he was receiving up to ?161,358 in allowances, meant to cover a range of expenses including, specifically, accommodation for the days he spent in Brussels. And that the allowance for the days in Brussels was circa 250 euros a day.[/quote]

1. I already raised the question that it's not clear if interest payments or any other financial charges were taken into account before that amount was calculated, and, more importantly, that half of any profit is his wife's.

2. I do not know enough about Clegg's previous work and if it included travelling where he'd have to book into hotels, etc. We also do not know what percentage of these expenses was used for such accommodation.

[quote]The question that neither Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems nor your good self have attempted to explain is what the obviously large amount of money claimed for living accommodation specifically in Brussels during the period of 2001-2004 was actually spent on?[/quote]

I'm not privy to Clegg's private finances so you're asking the wrong man. But the lead up to your question is again misleading. You don't know how much was claimed specifically for accommodation out of that ?161,000.

[quote]Sam, if you put all these stories together, and then choose to give him the benefit of the doubt re. the Brussels house on the basis that unreceipted expenses allows you to get away with pretty much anything you are still left with the following:

1. A man who left the EU gravy train and got a job as a lobbyist for about a year. Presumably using his political contacts to further the likes of his clients such as BG.
2. Made absolutely no mention of this in his CV.
3. Had money paid directly into his personal account from three different donors for a year. Hasnt this guy heard of business accounts?
4. Regularly pushed the limit of what it was possible to claim for MP expenses for a second home whilst taking the moral high ground re. expenses.[/quote]

1. He gets criticised for riding the gravy train and now criticised for jumping off it?
2. So?
3. If they're all in one personal account they should be easier to keep track of. It's the people with multiple accounts you can't trust !happy!
4. The language you use! 'Pushed the limit'. That terminology implies he tried to get more than the rules allowed. Misleading.

[quote]In comparison with the likes of Chris Mullin and the Swedish guy in the EU who gave his expenses profits to charity, do you think that Clegg has the right to take the holier than thou attitude about politics and ask people to vote for him so we can get away from the corrupt expenses policies of Labour and COnservatives.[/quote]

No, he doesn't. I don't think he has been comparing himself with the Swedish guy, though. I'm sure if you looked hard enough that Swede could find someone he wouldn't dare compare himself to. There's always someone more honest and humble around the corner!

Like I alluded to in my last post, it's just mud slinging in the hope something sticks. Maybe some of it will stick but I think it unfair to label him a hypocrite until you've something more solid. It's all assumption and gossip right now.

[David Johnson]

First of all, I must say I admire your dogged, Perrinesque determination to never admit you might be wrong and always to try and have the last word in a thread.

"1. I already raised the question that it's not clear if interest payments or any other financial charges were taken into account before that amount was calculated, and, more importantly, that half of any profit is his wife's.

2. I do not know enough about Clegg's previous work and if it included travelling where he'd have to book into hotels, etc. We also do not know what percentage of these expenses was used for such accommodation."

Your points above refer to my statement, not refuted by Clegg, that he bought a house and sold it at profit. Secondly he claimed allowances for accommodation whilst in Brussels during the period 2001-2004 whilst using the house. The value of those expenses claimed for Brussels accommodation we can put to one side for a moment. It's a sideshow and a bit of a smokescreen. Not that I would ever accuse you of using a smokescreen to try and win an argument!

I note with great interest that you steer clear of the absolutely critical question here. Given the intense media interest on this and given the fact that the very, very detailed statistics used in this story have not been questioned or challenged by Clegg, why hasnt Clegg answered the questions raised?

Why has Clegg not explained what he did with the sum of money (we can park the argument as to exactly how much) for Brussels accommodation?
Wouldnt you have thought it relatively easy for Clegg to explain this when the story went everywhere last week?

"He gets criticised for riding the gravy train and now criticised for jumping off it?"

No, obviously not. He got huge quantites of expenses and then carried on making the most of his expense "opportunities" as an MP.

"If they're all in one personal account they should be easier to keep track of. It's the people with multiple accounts you can't trust"

You cannot be so naive. You must have a passing knowledge of business? And understand that this approach, to use the words of the former Commons standards chairman "is very irregular".

"The language you use! 'Pushed the limit'. That terminology implies he tried to get more than the rules allowed. Misleading."

Nonsense. It means exactly what it says. He regularly claimed near the limit. And by the way, if you had read the story properly, you would have noticed that he exceeded that limit on at least one occasion and got a knock back.

"Like I alluded to in my last post, it's just mud slinging in the hope something sticks. "

I love this answer. It made me laugh out loud. It's exactly the same statement made by a myriad number of MPs across all the parties when the expenses claim info came out in the Telegraph. It was usually accompanied by threats of legal action, none of which as far as I am aware took place.

The huge problem with your approach in this thread is that its as if you think that this is a court of law and the proof of guilt has to be beyond any doubt whatsoever because Clegg is charged with murder or something equally serious.

It isn't. So no need to pay the part of my learned friend. It is not illegal what he did in Brussels because no receipts are required. It is not illegal what he did as an MP because he charged up to the limit regularly.

Why has Clegg not explained what he did with the sum of money (we can park the argument as to exactly how much) for Brussels accommodation?
Wouldnt you have thought it relatively easy for Clegg to explain this when the story went everywhere last week?

If someone regularly charges just about every penny they can for second home expenses (again the Telegraph story was not refuted by Clegg) does this not make them seem hypocritical when they take the holier than thou line on expenses?

Of course it does, Sam but no doubt you will in your Perrinesque way argue black is white.

Cheers
David

PS Do try and answer the question about why Clegg doesnt come clean on where the money went? I will notice if you don't answer it you know!!

[Sam Slater]

[quote]First of all, I must say I admire your dogged, Perrinesque determination to never admit you might be wrong and always to try and have the last word in a thread.[/quote]

I can take being called a cunt, twat(t) and a tosser, and have even let off people who've accused me being from Doncaster, but NEVER compare me to Mr. Rasputin. That really is a low blow.

And I admit I'm wrong on the odd occasion I actually am. That's very rare but it does happen. I don't see where I'm wrong, though. Am I wrong to refuse to label someone a hypocrite based on supposition and hearsay?

[quote]Your points above refer to my statement, not refuted by Clegg, that he bought a house and sold it at profit. Secondly he claimed allowances for accommodation whilst in Brussels during the period 2001-2004 whilst using the house. The value of those expenses claimed for Brussels accommodation we can put to one side for a moment.[/quote]

Oh, so now you want to put aside the values now, after complaining earlier I was omitting the higher figure of ?278,346 and only mentioning the more relevant, lower figure of ?161,358? In other words, it was important when it suited you to mislead, and when that didn't work it's not so important, only the principle? I get it.

[quote]I note with great interest that you steer clear of the absolutely critical question here. Given the intense media interest on this and given the fact that the very, very detailed statistics used in this story have not been questioned or challenged by Clegg, why hasnt Clegg answered the questions raised?[/quote]

Very detailed statistics indeed, but all it comes down to is terms like 'highly likely'. Why hasn't Clegg answered? Who knows? Maybe he's not like me and feels he has to have the last word (you'll like him then)? Maybe he knows he's nothing to answer for and it's just the papers digging up dirt after some people have started to actually notice him and his party. Maybe he is guilty and keeping quiet, as you are seemingly keen to think. I don't know how any of this makes me 'wrong'.

[quote]Why has Clegg not explained what he did with the sum of money (we can park the argument as to exactly how much) for Brussels accommodation?
Wouldnt you have thought it relatively easy for Clegg to explain this when the story went everywhere last week?[/quote]

Again, I don't know. What I do know is that you, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Times, The Guardian et al don't know either. What I do know, David, is that I'd struggle to tell you what I spent money on between 2001 and 2005 when I'd not kept receipts. If he wasn't obliged to keep receipts then why would he? Like I told you earlier, he wasn't to know there'd be an expenses scandal 9-4 years down the line.

[quote]No, obviously not. He got huge quantites of expenses and then carried on making the most of his expense "opportunities" as an MP.[/quote]

What does 'making the most of' mean? That he 'made the most of' the money in providing the public or 'made the most of' the money to pocket it for himself? You don't know, do you?

[quote]You cannot be so naive. You must have a passing knowledge of business? And understand that this approach, to use the words of the former Commons standards chairman "is very irregular".[/quote]

Nope. Never run a business, David. Still, if I want to do dodgy deals I'd be more inclined to have multiple accounts rather than use my own personal account. I'd have bits going here, bits going there and bits up in the air! All in the hope of making tracing things more complicated. I may well be naive and maybe using a single, personal bank account really does muddy the waters much more. In this I do not know. I'd have to have someone with personal experience of this sort of thing to explain to me how it all works. For the life of me, though, I can't see any logical path from 'one bank account' to 'dodgy bloke who is a hypocrite'. Perhaps you know more and can explain.

[quote]Nonsense. It means exactly what it says. He regularly claimed near the limit.[/quote]

Nonsense. I might be naive about dodgy deals but I understand common English terminology. 'Pushing the limit' means 'to push the boundaries', or 'to test the limit of something', or 'to go beyond the limit'. The term doesn't really apply to hard, straight numbers so it was a bad choice on your part if your meaning was misunderstood.

[quote]I love this answer. It made me laugh out loud. It's exactly the same statement made by a myriad number of MPs across all the parties when the expenses claim info came out in the Telegraph. It was usually accompanied by threats of legal action, none of which as far as I am aware took place.[/quote]

So because the Telegraph caught a few UK politicians in 2008-09 then it must be true of a Euro politician in 2001-05? My uncle got mugged by 3 black guys a few years ago. Is he to assume every time someone gets mugged, who he knows, that they must be black? Like I also said earlier: I hope you don't ever get called up to jury service!

[quote]The huge problem with your approach in this thread is that its as if you think that this is a court of law and the proof of guilt has to be beyond any doubt whatsoever because Clegg is charged with murder or something equally serious.[/quote]

Your language again! 'my huge problem'! !laugh! So, to sum up your point, I have a 'problem' with wanting proof on something before passing judgement on someone? Well I never. Bad Sam! Bad Sam!

[quote]It isn't. So no need to pay the part of my learned friend. It is not illegal what he did in Brussels because no receipts are required. It is not illegal what he did as an MP because he charged up to the limit regularly.[/quote]

Ok, I'll be your mate. And for good measure I'll be supporting Blackpool in the playoffs. I like Ian Holloway and it would be nice to see you up there with the big boys. Now, back on topic: I know it probably wasn't illegal, and most, if not all, of my points in this debate aren't focussed on legality in any way. In fact, I'm pretty sure I mentioned something like 'whether it be legal or ethical......' in one post. Well, again, legal or ethical, I still want a little more proof before passing judgement.

[quote]If someone regularly charges just about every penny they can for second home expenses (again the Telegraph story was not refuted by Clegg) does this not make them seem hypocritical when they take the holier than thou line on expenses?

Of course it does, Sam but no doubt you will in your Perrinesque way argue black is white.[/quote]

I already admitted that it would be hypocritical in my last post. Go check. But there are so many things about all this that are just assumed and supposed. You're buying it all because you're miffed the Lib Dems have gained a few votes. You've not shut up about Clegg since the first tv debate, and not much of it has been positive. That's your right, of course, but I'm not buying the tittle-tattle until it's got a little more meat on the bones.

Talking of Keith Rasputin/Barcode/Giles/Reggie Perrin: where is he? He's not been absent from the forum for this long before, I'm sure. He's got to be using a different username again. My guess is that the mods don't even know because he moves home, and thus ISP, a lot. I mean, he's never going to get on with the neighbours enough to stay put now is he? It doesn't take them long to get him evicted. !grin!