Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabinet and Ministerial resignations

[edit]

I have it that Hazel Blears stepping down was not related to the expenses scandal. The Wiki page for her placement of the cabinet ended On 3 June 2009 [sky news] makes no mention that she resigned over expenses. Surely it is misinformation to place her resignation in a light that suggests it was due to expenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.146.63 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of the Speaker-Biased and Seemingly opinionated

[edit]

Under the section Resignation of the Speaker, the first sentence read "The resignation of the Speaker, an almost unprecedented event, was due to a perception by many[108][109] that he had contributed to the scandal by poor leadership and judgement. This included lax handling of the fees office, and defence of the status quo of vested interests rather than recognition of the more significant issues,[110][111] and that he therefore lacked the requisite authority to repair the harm done by the controversy." This information appears to be referenced with articles that would support this "view" or perspective of the late Speaker's style of leadership-or lack there of. The referenced articles DO NOT support this opening sentence, and in fact, one of the referenced articles is from an opinion, from a specialised news publication (The Whig) from Ontario, Canada. The other 3 articles referenced from the NY Times, Reuters, and BBC News, all seemed to basically report that it was the way Martin responded to the leak to the publication of the expenses,for one, attempting to enlist the services of Scotland Yard to investigate where the leak came from. An obvious extreme messure. He also personally attacked those MPs who criticized him than responding to public anger. In addition, it is referenced that the opposition party MUST have confidence in the Speaker as Cameron was quoted “a very important constitutional principle that the Opposition supports the Speaker's office and the role of the Speaker". Apparently, the opposition lost all confidence, even by Prime Minister Brown's own admission. Brown also did say that Martin had done a good job as Speaker but many things happen in the heat of the moment. He was referring to HOW Martin reacted to the inquiry of his expense reports, and the media's publication of the questionable expense reports by various MPs. It is not our place to opine as to the events, which may or may not have led up to this catastrophic event of the expense scandal of the MPs. It is also no secret that the Conservative Party, and their leader has opposed many calls and decisions made by the late Speaker. Dislike and opposition by the MINORITY party in the House of Commons, is not indicative of Martin's LEADSHIP skills. In addition to the manner in which he responded to the investigation of the expense reports, for example: calling on Scotland Yard's services, and noting so , publically to the entire House of Commons, is not only extreme but shows a clear misunderstanding of system protocol, and well, the law. Martin also made a horribly gross error in allowing the police to enter Westminster and search an MP's office without obtaining a search warrant. Whether it was in the moment, and being caught off guard, or a lack of understanding of the law, Martin got it wrong, and committed a gross error by allowing police to enter the MP's office, without a search warrant. Again, these are key events or conditions which COULD HAVE marked the end of Martin's career but to conclude as much by deeming his performance as Speaker as a poor leader, is an opinion, and an opinion not referenced by any article. I have made changes to the opening paragraph on "The Resignation of the Speaker" to reflect the information conveyed in the 3 articles referenced, on a factual basis.

R.E, the conservative group that unlocked Pandora's box

[edit]

The group that unleashed this was WP:COI, as the shadow leadership attended. Was it a coincidental leak, when the govt. was unpopular.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSOURCES

[edit]

Just as a reminder we cannot use sources like The Sun or The Daily Mail for anything remotely controversial on living people. I've taken some sub-standard sources out, and removed some material pending its verifiability with more reliable sources. --John (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All official records of MPs’ expenses from before 2010 destroyed

[edit]

I don't think the article at the moment mentions the fact that the Commons authorities in 2014 had destroyed all official records of MPs’ expenses from before 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/03/mps-expenses-official-records-scandal-era-destroyed

I'll add it to the article if nobody objects. 92.24.17.80 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

The lead section is too long, and it provides a poor introduction to the subject of the article. I couldn't even make heads or tails of the first sentence.

Analyzed alone, the first sentence has an F-K reading ease score of -6.5 (yes, that's negative 6.5), and an F-K grade level of 28.8. Way too high to provide an accessible introduction even if this is a complex topic.

Analyzed as a whole, the lead is 8 paragraphs and over 800 words. It has an F-K grade level of 15.9 and an ARI score of 17.1, indicating that at least some college education, possibly even graduate-level, is required to fully understand the material in the lead. This is just way too high. Admittedly, I'm an American, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the contextual knowledge of the UK Government that a citizen would have, but I still think the lead needs to be drastically improved. —Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content from Flipping article

[edit]

I removed the following from Flipping because it was off-topic there. It overlaps the current content of this article somewhat, and may be useful here:

In the United Kingdom, "flipping" is used to describe a technique whereby Members of Parliament were found to be switching their second home between several houses, which had the effect of allowing them to maximize their taxpayer-funded allowances.[1] The practice ended on 15 May 2009 following publication of the Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament after a public scandal.[2]

References

  1. ^ "More than 50 MPS flipped second home, new expenses figures show". TheGuardian.com. 10 December 2009. Archived from the original on 27 October 2020. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
  2. ^ "How the Telegraph investigation exposed the MPs' expenses scandal day by day". London: Daily Telegraph. May 15, 2009. Archived from the original on 2019-09-28. Retrieved 2010-05-07.

Daask (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal&oldid=1228064132"