Monday, 9 November 2009


Ms Laing and Ms Starkey, two of the women concerned for their safety

On Friday of last week I mentioned that a junior minister at the Department of Work and Pensions had pointed out that, without the right to claim on expenses for a cleaner, women would not be able to take up jobs as MPs. I mentioned the patently obvious fact that there was no difference between an MP and any other worker, and I drew the conclusion that what, in effect, this woman was saying was that NO WOMAN would be able to take ANY job, unless their employer paid for a cleaner: a rather strange and somewhat impracticable notion for a minister in the Department of WORK and Pensions to come up with.

Today, according to
The Daily Telegraph
, a group of female MPs have said that reforms proposed by Christopher Kelly will put female MPs at risk of sexual assault. This particular claim is based on the proposal that second homes allowance should only be available to MPs who live a certain distance from the Commons, meaning that some MPs may have a little farther to travel after work. It is only fair to Kelly to mention at this point that he said that taxi fares could be claimed when the House sat late, in place of the allowance, as that would be much cheaper.

Several of the group are, apparently, people whose expenses have come in from criticism in the past and they come from both Tory and Labour benches. Isn’t it strange how these people can work together in perfect harmony when it involves them getting their grasping little trotters on some more of our cash?

Once again, I cannot for a minute assume that these women think that MPs should be different from anyone else, and if they feel that the streets of Britain are so full of sexual perverts that none of them is safe out alone after dark (even in a taxi cab paid for by the tax payer), they must be proposing that ALL women who work should be provided by their employers with a second home allowance so that they can live right next to their place of employment. I’d suggest that this is another rather impracticable proposal given the current financial meltdown situation.

These women who seem to feel that they are being treated unfairly might like to remember that attacks (albeit rarely sexual ones) are perpetrated on men as well as women, and they might want to speak to the Home Secretary about doing something about the Law and Order issues that they have such problems with.

OK, so that was all a bit of a joke. Let’s get down to the truth. These women have a car park that they can use for free under the House of Commons. Additionally, to suit different life choices, they are being offered taxis at our expense, door to door. (I’m sure we could arrange to vet the taxi company to ensure that there are no perverts on its staff, although that company might respond by asking for a similar check on the MPs.) The truth is that they are not in the least worried about being attacked. What they are worried about is no longer being allowed to buy a second home cheap, have it done up at our expense as a second home, and then sell it on at a massive profit, having carefully flipped it to make sure that it no longer attracts any Capital Gains Tax.

I don’t know how many of you feel as angry as I do about these people who just won’t give it up, while the rest of us cope with the results of the recession that they have overseen. They need to remember that we sent them to parliament to look after OUR interests. They seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time looking after their own!!


  1. Hit the nail on the head, it truly is about the money with MP's and they forget (or ignore) the fact that it's OUR money.

  2. Hi Quiet Man, welcome to Munguin's Republic.

    It's sickening that they have now started using equality of employment rights in this way. None of them seems capable of thinking that what they are now saying is that if they got all that extra money to protect them from sexual predators, why would women doing other jobs not be entited to exactly the same level of protection?

    With every day that passes we will see them coming up with new excuses why they have to have the money. Still, they've had plenty of practice coming up with new excuses for going to war....

    They are totally sickening.

  3. I agree with Quiet man, the current batch of representatives would have been purged by Cromwell, but dont worry- they shall all be democratially purged come 2010.

    The key is to stop them getting the golden handshake!

  4. We can't stop them though Dean, unless you have a cunning plan?????

    They will get a huge hand out and then they'll write books, or do lecture tours and motivation classes on how to get rich quick. That kind of person never misses out on anything.

    By comparison with these lowlife there's a great piece over on Tory Outcast which is worth a read.

  5. I did give you a plan Tris, you or Munguin need to blow them all up ... [is that the sound of anti-terror police I hear outside my door?]

    I'll give a look at the link!

  6. Oh yeah Dean, I'd forgotten that you'd already come up with your cunning plan for me to execute (no pun intended).

    I'm saying nothing. I'm sure that in the surveillence society that ZaNuLabour has fostered, someone somewhere will be watching us. It's a pity they never seem to learn just how angry we are.

    Anyway, say hello to the anti-terrorist quad for me.... and let me know if you need anything like a cake with a file in it.....


    Yeah have a look at the link Dean. It's great piece.

  7. It really is unbelievable. I was under the impression that women are fully equal to men in every respect. So Harriet Harman, keeps telling us. Indeed for the world to revolve correctly there should always be an equal and opposite woman for every man.

    Who could be more equal to Harriet than her fellow female MPs? Does Harriet have to get special treatment because she is apparently of the gentler sex? If so, then, is that not a tacit recognition that she is also of the weaker sex? But we already know that Harriet wears a stab proof vest when she goes out to get her kebab in her Peckham constituency. And here are all the ladies of parliament admitting the same thing.

    So is this a question of equality when it suits and chivalry when it does not? Or is this just using there femininity to get more from us? Either way it really does make a mockery of female equality.

  8. It's all about money Munguin. If they had stopped to think about what they were saying they would have realised that they have put the whole issue of equality back many many years.

    MPs of either gender should have more to do than go to the House. They need to be active in their constituencies. There must be meetings of all sorts that go on at nights. How can they do that if they are afraid to go out at night.

    Additionally, as I've said in the post, they cannot think that MPs should receive special treatment over other (female) workers. (Well, they can think it, but they can't say it out loud.) What they are saying is that all female employees who may sometimes have to work after dark must have special housing conditions so that they are not likely to be sexually attacked.
    (As crime is a remit of parliament, surely that is a terrible admission to have to make.)

    No. They are not interested in this. They have, as I said, door to door transport at our expense. What they want is to continue to be able to fleece us for every last penny.

    They were disgusting in my eyes before they started this moaning and whining. They have shown such misjudgement in these responses that they have sunk even farther now.

    God knows what Harman thinks of this carry on. She'll be desperate to sound leader-like (in case there is a vacancy) and at the same time desperate to support the sisterhood.

    Dean's got the right idea!

  9. Yes indeed Tris, the same money grabbing fools are the same one trying to tare Kelly's report to bits.

    I'm not sure how many are Labour but hopefully most of them will have gone next year anyway.

    This taxi business as well is getting on my knitting. If I was sent to Glasgow on secondment and did not have my car then I would be expected to either take the bus or the train over.

    However if the destination in Glasgow was a few miles out from the city centre then I ken I would be within the rule book and could order a taxi and claim the rail and taxi fare back.

    They MP's would be charging us for a taxi bill from door to door, just not good enough..

  10. Spook: They are not even charging just for going on trips outside of their normal work. They are charging for travel to and from their place of work. No one else gets to do that.

    Now fair enough, they can't live where they choose, as close to work as possible, they have to live in their constituency. Kelly says that they can't have a second house if they are within one hour travelling distance from their home. They want jam and champagne icing on their cakes.

    There are millions of people in teh country, including women who have to travel far more that one hour ever day to get to work.

    At the end of the day, if they don't like the conditions, like everyone else in the country, they can resign. I believe KFC is taking on staff.

    They need to ive in the same world as the rest of us so that they can see what our lives are like. Until they do we will be misgoverned.

  11. It would make a lot of sense if we just left it to the men. Back in the day, before Nancy took her seat, we never heard any of our gallant Members whining about being scared of the dark.

    In fact, some of them only came into their own up a dark alley!

  12. LOL Sophia....

    Indeed they probably did... and what's more probably do ....erm, frequently!

    That's why I think the taxi company might want to vet THEM for sexual perverts before allowing their drivers to be in close proximity (and that includes the women)!!

    As Munguin said to me as he looked at the photographs... They're scared of WHAT? And then collapsed in a heap of laughter....

    Dunno why.