Discussion:
John Lewis look
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 02:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.

It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.

OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.

That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 04:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
I wrote down the quote, but thought I'd lost the paper where I wrote
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
John Ritson
2021-04-26 10:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.

To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.

So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
--
John Ritson
charles
2021-04-26 10:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ritson
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
Post by John Ritson
To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.
So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-26 16:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.
So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 18:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the form
of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.

Not that either system is the most advantageous. You can find fault
with either.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.
So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-26 19:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the form
of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
How is that not an advantage to the office-holder/seeker?

For those that can afford the megabuck political contributions,
their effect on their corporate or personal bottom line is minuscule.
Bloomberg -- probably not even the richest person in NYC any more,
let alone the country -- gave _enormous_ sums to defeating the bad
guys in Georgia and such. Not even a drop in is bottomless bucket.
As much as Koch? Probably not.
Post by Tony Cooper
Not that either system is the most advantageous. You can find fault
with either.
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 20:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:11:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the form
of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
How is that not an advantage to the office-holder/seeker?
Oh, this is going to be another one of your defenses of an ambigious
post claiming you were talking about one thing, and I was commenting
on something else.

First of all, members of congress use their MRA (Members
Representional Allowance) to furnish their office. That is similar to
the UK system in that the government provides the funds. They are
prohibited from using campaign funds for this purpose, but they may
provide personal funds when the cost exceeds the MRA.

From:
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources#campaign_congressional_expenses_not_paid
Congressional Expenses That May Not Be Paid With Campaign Funds. House
Rule XXIV sets forth five categories of congressional expenses that
may not be paid using campaign funds. They are: office space,
furniture, equipment and associated information technology services
(except for handheld communication devices), mail or other
communications, and compensation for services.


You might look up former Rep Aaron Schock (R-Illinois) who was
indicted on charges that included using campaign funds to decorate his
office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/10/former-illinois-congressmen-with-downton-abbey-office-to-be-indicted-attorney-says/

More details on the MRA at:
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2019/04/05/the-members-representational-allowance-mra-looking-at-house-personal-office-budgets/

Secondly, your post did not specify that the advantages were solely to
the office-holder/seeker.

I'll not trim the following because I know you have conniptions when
not every word of what you say is included in a post, but it has
nothing to do with the facts that John Ritson brought up.

You need a "Drifting a bit..." catchphrase to indicate when you're
going off on another garden path. You might consider "Wildly
off-course ramble" as it better describes your additions.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
For those that can afford the megabuck political contributions,
their effect on their corporate or personal bottom line is minuscule.
Bloomberg -- probably not even the richest person in NYC any more,
let alone the country -- gave _enormous_ sums to defeating the bad
guys in Georgia and such. Not even a drop in is bottomless bucket.
As much as Koch? Probably not.
Post by Tony Cooper
Not that either system is the most advantageous. You can find fault
with either.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-26 21:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:11:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the form
of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
How is that not an advantage to the office-holder/seeker?
Oh, this is going to be another one of your defenses of an ambigious
post claiming you were talking about one thing, and I was commenting
on something else.
First of all, members of congress use their MRA (Members
Representional Allowance) to furnish their office. That is similar to
the UK system in that the government provides the funds. They are
prohibited from using campaign funds for this purpose, but they may
provide personal funds when the cost exceeds the MRA.
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources#campaign_congressional_expenses_not_paid
Congressional Expenses That May Not Be Paid With Campaign Funds. House
Rule XXIV sets forth five categories of congressional expenses that
may not be paid using campaign funds. They are: office space,
furniture, equipment and associated information technology services
(except for handheld communication devices), mail or other
communications, and compensation for services.
You might look up former Rep Aaron Schock (R-Illinois) who was
indicted on charges that included using campaign funds to decorate his
office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/10/former-illinois-congressmen-with-downton-abbey-office-to-be-indicted-attorney-says/
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2019/04/05/the-members-representational-allowance-mra-looking-at-house-personal-office-budgets/
Secondly, your post did not specify that the advantages were solely to
the office-holder/seeker.
I'll not trim the following because I know you have conniptions when
not every word of what you say is included in a post, but it has
nothing to do with the facts that John Ritson brought up.
You need a "Drifting a bit..." catchphrase to indicate when you're
going off on another garden path. You might consider "Wildly
off-course ramble" as it better describes your additions.
What a spectacular goalpost move.

Suddenly you've decided that all along, we were talking about
nothing but decorating the office provided in one of the Congressional
office buildings adjacent to the Capitol in Washington.

Now go back and read what I _actually_ wrote, not what you
imagine I wrote so that you can start another of your endless
fights.

And apologize.

Or go start a fight with someone else.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
For those that can afford the megabuck political contributions,
their effect on their corporate or personal bottom line is minuscule.
Bloomberg -- probably not even the richest person in NYC any more,
let alone the country -- gave _enormous_ sums to defeating the bad
guys in Georgia and such. Not even a drop in is bottomless bucket.
As much as Koch? Probably not.
Post by Tony Cooper
Not that either system is the most advantageous. You can find fault
with either.
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 22:54:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 12:11:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the form
of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
How is that not an advantage to the office-holder/seeker?
Oh, this is going to be another one of your defenses of an ambigious
post claiming you were talking about one thing, and I was commenting
on something else.
First of all, members of congress use their MRA (Members
Representional Allowance) to furnish their office. That is similar to
the UK system in that the government provides the funds. They are
prohibited from using campaign funds for this purpose, but they may
provide personal funds when the cost exceeds the MRA.
https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources#campaign_congressional_expenses_not_paid
Congressional Expenses That May Not Be Paid With Campaign Funds. House
Rule XXIV sets forth five categories of congressional expenses that
may not be paid using campaign funds. They are: office space,
furniture, equipment and associated information technology services
(except for handheld communication devices), mail or other
communications, and compensation for services.
You might look up former Rep Aaron Schock (R-Illinois) who was
indicted on charges that included using campaign funds to decorate his
office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/10/former-illinois-congressmen-with-downton-abbey-office-to-be-indicted-attorney-says/
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2019/04/05/the-members-representational-allowance-mra-looking-at-house-personal-office-budgets/
Secondly, your post did not specify that the advantages were solely to
the office-holder/seeker.
I'll not trim the following because I know you have conniptions when
not every word of what you say is included in a post, but it has
nothing to do with the facts that John Ritson brought up.
You need a "Drifting a bit..." catchphrase to indicate when you're
going off on another garden path. You might consider "Wildly
off-course ramble" as it better describes your additions.
What a spectacular goalpost move.
Suddenly you've decided that all along, we were talking about
nothing but decorating the office provided in one of the Congressional
office buildings adjacent to the Capitol in Washington.
You didn't read the link, did you? The MRA funds include district
offices. In the link it says: "The amount for staff and general
office expenses are the same for each office. The number of
residential addresses within a district, its distance from Washington,
and the price to rent office space in the district are variables that
determine the size of the MRA. If a district is far from DC, has many
inhabitants or has expensive real estate, there will be a larger
budget than a rural district close to Washington."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Now go back and read what I _actually_ wrote, not what you
imagine I wrote so that you can start another of your endless
fights.
I did. You wrote: "See? That's one of the advantages of campaign
contributions ostensibly for advertising."

You claimed our system provides an advantage. I disagreed that
there's any advantage to our system. Instead, it has inherent flaws.

You continued: "You can use what's left over for, e.g., decorating
your office.", and that is flat-out wrong. Are you planning to admit
that you were wrong?
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-04-27 01:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that
Members of Parliament occupying two properties (normally one
in their constituency, one near Westminster - though there
were some very interesting variants) would designate one as
their secondary residence, occupied only to fulfil their
parliamentary duties. The House of Commons would pay for
rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own
money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the
form of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
Some of us would prefer to have the taxpayer pay for campaign
advertising, on condition that (a) the budget is limited in some way,
e.g. a fixed amount per candidate, and (b) political donations from all
other sources are banned.

The tricky part would be blocking donations in kind, e.g. campaigns run
by a newspaper to support one political party and heap shit on the
opposition. Under-the-table donations are also troublesome, and very common.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-27 14:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that
Members of Parliament occupying two properties (normally one
in their constituency, one near Westminster - though there
were some very interesting variants) would designate one as
their secondary residence, occupied only to fulfil their
parliamentary duties. The House of Commons would pay for
rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own
money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the
form of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
Some of us would prefer to have the taxpayer pay for campaign
advertising, on condition that (a) the budget is limited in some way,
e.g. a fixed amount per candidate, and (b) political donations from all
other sources are banned.
The tricky part would be blocking donations in kind, e.g. campaigns run
by a newspaper to support one political party and heap shit on the
opposition. Under-the-table donations are also troublesome, and very common.
We don't need all those subterfuges (and newspapers are not in the
fund-raising business), because in 2010 SCOTUS decreed that "money
is speech" (Citizens United decision), meaning that corporations (which
are people) are free to give all the money they care to (not directly to
candidates, but) to "PACs" (political action committees) that hand out
the money.

Apparently Mr. Cooper is completely blind to the fact that he has lived
for decades in one of the most corrupt states in the country, where money
talks and donors can buy whatever legislators they choose, whether or not
such buying (you've sometimes used that quaint word "bribing") anyone
who'll do what they tell them to. Apparently he thinks that if there's a law
on the books, no one will try to find ways around it.

Also, he doesn't seem to know that politicians don't have an office just
adjacent to the capitol where they spend a few weeks or months a year.
And couldn't figure out that I was being metonymic (although the reference
to his state's latest nefarious congressman might have been a hint, who is
documented as having paid for sex with underage girls (though not quite
so underage as the late Mr. Epstein preferred).
Tony Cooper
2021-04-27 18:50:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
LOn Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that
Members of Parliament occupying two properties (normally one
in their constituency, one near Westminster - though there
were some very interesting variants) would designate one as
their secondary residence, occupied only to fulfil their
parliamentary duties. The House of Commons would pay for
rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the
form of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
Some of us would prefer to have the taxpayer pay for campaign
advertising, on condition that (a) the budget is limited in some way,
e.g. a fixed amount per candidate, and (b) political donations from all
other sources are banned.
The tricky part would be blocking donations in kind, e.g. campaigns run
by a newspaper to support one political party and heap shit on the
opposition. Under-the-table donations are also troublesome, and very common.
We don't need all those subterfuges (and newspapers are not in the
fund-raising business), because in 2010 SCOTUS decreed that "money
is speech" (Citizens United decision), meaning that corporations (which
are people) are free to give all the money they care to (not directly to
candidates, but) to "PACs" (political action committees) that hand out
the money.
Apparently Mr. Cooper is completely blind to the fact that he has lived
for decades in one of the most corrupt states in the country, where money
talks and donors can buy whatever legislators they choose, whether or not
such buying (you've sometimes used that quaint word "bribing") anyone
who'll do what they tell them to. Apparently he thinks that if there's a law
on the books, no one will try to find ways around it.
A rather laughable defense line taken, there. What has the fact that
I've chosen to live in Florida have to do with anything being
discussed here? My choice to move from the Chicago area to Florida
was a job-related decision. I would not think a former New Yorker and
Chicagoan, and present New Jerseyite, would use residence location as
an attack of this sort. That's a bridge too far.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Also, he doesn't seem to know that politicians don't have an office just
adjacent to the capitol where they spend a few weeks or months a year.
Still haven't done your homework, eh? The district office furnishing
expenses come out of the politician's MRA, and it is illegal to use
campaign funds for this purpose. You've been provided with cites on
this.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And couldn't figure out that I was being metonymic (although the reference
to his state's latest nefarious congressman might have been a hint, who is
documented as having paid for sex with underage girls (though not quite
so underage as the late Mr. Epstein preferred).
Off you go down Strawman Path. Matt Gaetz is a slimy fucker who
should be kicked out of the House, but the investigations into his
alleged crimes have not yet had anything to do with misuse of campaign
funds for the sex-related activities. So far, it his payments from
personal funds for sex, drugs, and possible trafficking that are under
investigation. Nor has the underage aspect been "documented". It's
been alleged, but the age of the girl (not girls) at the time has not
been determined. She refuses to cooperate with the investigation.

The only campaign fund misuse that has come up so far is his payments
for legal defense from campaign funds. Campaign funds may be used for
legal expenses relating to the politician's official duties, but not
his/her personal indiscretions.

What might come up in the future is a different subject.

Look...you made a mistake when you wrote "See? That's one of the
advantages of campaign contributions ostensibly for advertising. You
can use what's left over for, e.g., decorating your office. (Or --
Matt Gaetz -- other things.)"

It was just a mistake based on ignorance of the fact that MRA pays for
office (DC and District) space and furnishings, and that this is
similar to the UK system.

It was a forgivable mistake if you had shut up about it once you were
informed of the MRA. That was the time to retreat from the
discussion with a shred of dignity.

But you didn't. Typically, you have compounded the mistake by an
inept scattershot defense with more mistakes.

I'm too realistic to ask for your apology or a retraction or an
admission of error, but stop now before you further embarass yourself.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-27 19:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
LOn Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:49:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by John Ritson
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that
Members of Parliament occupying two properties (normally one
in their constituency, one near Westminster - though there
were some very interesting variants) would designate one as
their secondary residence, occupied only to fulfil their
parliamentary duties. The House of Commons would pay for
rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
You mean "The taxpayer" pays. The HoC doesn't have its own money.
See? That's one of the advantages of campaign contributions
ostensibly for advertising. You can use what's left over for, e.g.,
decorating your office. (Or -- Matt Gaetz -- other things.)
Advantages? In the US, the campaign contributions that come from
corporate entities are bribes from those entities to ensure that the
legislators enact and support laws that favor those entities. The
final cost is paid by the general public (aka: taxpayers) in the
form of product and rate (as in utility rates) costs.
Some of us would prefer to have the taxpayer pay for campaign
advertising, on condition that (a) the budget is limited in some way,
e.g. a fixed amount per candidate, and (b) political donations from all
other sources are banned.
The tricky part would be blocking donations in kind, e.g. campaigns run
by a newspaper to support one political party and heap shit on the
opposition. Under-the-table donations are also troublesome, and very common.
We don't need all those subterfuges (and newspapers are not in the
fund-raising business), because in 2010 SCOTUS decreed that "money
is speech" (Citizens United decision), meaning that corporations (which
are people) are free to give all the money they care to (not directly to
candidates, but) to "PACs" (political action committees) that hand out
the money.
Apparently Mr. Cooper is completely blind to the fact that he has lived
for decades in one of the most corrupt states in the country, where money
talks and donors can buy whatever legislators they choose, whether or not
such buying (you've sometimes used that quaint word "bribing") anyone
who'll do what they tell them to. Apparently he thinks that if there's a law
on the books, no one will try to find ways around it.
A rather laughable defense line taken, there. What has the fact that
I've chosen to live in Florida have to do with anything being
discussed here? My choice to move from the Chicago area to Florida
was a job-related decision. I would not think a former New Yorker and
Chicagoan, and present New Jerseyite, would use residence location as
an attack of this sort. That's a bridge too far.
So you admit you have been oblivious to your surroundings for what is
it, forty years now?

I wonder whether I should bother going back to read whatever was
below this point.
Tony Cooper
2021-04-27 19:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
A rather laughable defense line taken, there. What has the fact that
I've chosen to live in Florida have to do with anything being
discussed here? My choice to move from the Chicago area to Florida
was a job-related decision. I would not think a former New Yorker and
Chicagoan, and present New Jerseyite, would use residence location as
an attack of this sort. That's a bridge too far.
So you admit you have been oblivious to your surroundings for what is
it, forty years now?
I wonder whether I should bother going back to read whatever was
below this point.
I suggest you don't. It makes you look foolish. Nothing new there.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-27 20:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
A rather laughable defense line taken, there. What has the fact that
I've chosen to live in Florida have to do with anything being
discussed here? My choice to move from the Chicago area to Florida
was a job-related decision. I would not think a former New Yorker and
Chicagoan, and present New Jerseyite, would use residence location as
an attack of this sort. That's a bridge too far.
So you admit you have been oblivious to your surroundings for what is
it, forty years now?
I wonder whether I should bother going back to read whatever was
below this point.
I suggest you don't. It makes you look foolish. Nothing new there.
Turned out it was nothing but more of your maundering about your
total inability to understand plain English.
Tony Cooper
2021-04-26 15:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:02:12 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.
So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
Good answer. The last few lines explain what I had not known.

I have shopped in a Marks & Spencer and in Harrods in London, but the
John Lewis stores were not familiar to me then. We had intended to go
to Fortnum & Mason just to see what it was like, but got sidetracked
for some reason.

Not known to us then, but we were later exposed to Harvey Nichols by
"Patsy Stone" (AbFab) and her repeated references to "Harvey Nick's".

Some might think it strange to give this much attention to department
stores, but F&M, Marks and Sparks, Harrods, and Selfridges are
mentioned and seen so much in books, movies, and TV that they are as
much of the known landscape as the Tower of London to many Americans.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-04-26 16:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:02:12 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
During the expenses scandal of 2009, it was revealed that Members of
Parliament occupying two properties (normally one in their
constituency, one near Westminster - though there were some very
interesting variants) would designate one as their secondary residence,
occupied only to fulfil their parliamentary duties. The House of Commons
would pay for rent/mortgage, repairs, utilities and furniture for this
second residence.
To keep such furnishing costs under some control, MPs were issued with
the "John Lewis list" and advised that purchases from that catalogue, or
from cheaper suppliers would be reimbursed.
So "John Lewis" is political code for not being rich enough to purchase
upmarket designer furniture.
Good answer. The last few lines explain what I had not known.
I have shopped in a Marks & Spencer and in Harrods in London, but the
John Lewis stores were not familiar to me then.
One thing I like about John Lewis is that they eschew the 99p nonsense:
if something costs £30 they charge £30, not £29.99.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Lewis
2021-04-27 06:48:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:07:54 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
That's not a typo. There is a flat over #10, but there's a larger one
over #11 that the PM can use.
it. I did find it, though. It's a "John Lewis furniture nightmare"
as a description of the flat before the redecorating.
I'm not a particular fan of decorating so my knowledge of names and
brands is very limited, but the John Lewis look is pretty much basic
boring middle-American.

<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22John+Lewis+furniture%22&t=osx&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images>

Very average looking, though it looks like it is better made than a lot
of the "furniture by the pound"¹ chains. Our tastes run more toward
Ethan Allen.

¹ A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!), and
others.
--
Knowledge, information, power, words... flying through the air,
invisible... And suddenly the world was tap-dancing on quicksand.
In that case, the prize went to the best dancer. --The Fifth
Elephant
Sam Plusnet
2021-04-27 20:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.

Furnishing homeopathy?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-04-27 23:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint. That
might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been weakened, to ensure
a future supply of saints. Otherwise there could be a shortage of bones.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Quinn C
2021-04-28 13:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint. That
might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been weakened, to ensure
a future supply of saints. Otherwise there could be a shortage of bones.
Especially because modern humans are so small. The ancient saints were
at least 4 m tall, as you can deduce from adding up all the relics of
some of them.
--
It doesn't matter that you've got that stupid accent, or that your
bits are different to my bits, because being a Derry Girl,
well, it's a fucking state of mind. And you're one of us.
-- Michelle to James, Derry Girls, series 2, episode 6
Sam Plusnet
2021-04-28 17:42:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint. That
might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been weakened, to ensure
a future supply of saints. Otherwise there could be a shortage of bones.
Especially because modern humans are so small. The ancient saints were
at least 4 m tall, as you can deduce from adding up all the relics of
some of them.
That does have the useful side effect that the 'True Cross' was perforce
very large, and thus it could be subdivided into the many many pieces
still around.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-04-29 00:34:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like
American Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every
piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint.
That might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been
weakened, to ensure a future supply of saints. Otherwise there
could be a shortage of bones.
Especially because modern humans are so small. The ancient saints
were at least 4 m tall, as you can deduce from adding up all the
relics of some of them.
That does have the useful side effect that the 'True Cross' was
perforce very large, and thus it could be subdivided into the many
many pieces still around.
I've heard it said that if you collected all the pieces of the True
Cross, you could reconstruct Noah's ark.

That's a much bigger miracle than that business with the loaves and fishes.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-29 09:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like
American Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every
piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint.
That might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been
weakened, to ensure a future supply of saints. Otherwise there
could be a shortage of bones.
Especially because modern humans are so small. The ancient saints
were at least 4 m tall, as you can deduce from adding up all the
relics of some of them.
That does have the useful side effect that the 'True Cross' was
perforce very large, and thus it could be subdivided into the many
many pieces still around.
I've heard it said that if you collected all the pieces of the True
Cross, you could reconstruct Noah's ark.
That's a much bigger miracle than that business with the loaves and fishes.
Gopher it!

Jan

Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-28 14:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
A term my wife and I use for the various chains like American
Furniture Warehouse Oak Express (some Oak in every piece!),
I assume there is an acorn of truth in this statement,.
Furnishing homeopathy?
I gather that every Catholic church contains a relic of a saint. That
might be why the definition of a "miracle" has been weakened, to ensure
a future supply of saints. Otherwise there could be a shortage of bones.
Specifically, it's built into the altar stone (the "tabletop"). A huge mausoleum
in Chicago -- several times I went along when my friend wanted to visit his
parents in their niches -- has frames at the intersections of the corridors
containing a considerable number of (presumably certified) relics. While
he was saying his prayers, I would look at one of the nearby ones. Relics
are tiny, tiny chips of bone or other non-perishable substances. Such substantial
objects as the Crown of Thorns that used to be kept in Sainte Chapelle (but
apparently had been moved to Notre Dame some time before the fire) are
vanishingly rare in the relics world.
occam
2021-04-26 07:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
'Ikea look' = John Lewis look + 80 years (give or take)
'John Lewis look' = 'Selfridges look' <minus> £1000 (give or take)
spains...@gmail.com
2021-04-26 09:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
'Ikea look' = John Lewis look + 80 years (give or take)
'John Lewis look' = 'Selfridges look' <minus> £1000 (give or take)
'Ikea look' = MFI look + £1000 (give or take).
charles
2021-04-26 09:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
'Ikea look' = John Lewis look + 80 years (give or take)
'John Lewis look' = 'Selfridges look' <minus> £1000 (give or take)
do Selfridges still sell furniture?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
occam
2021-04-26 11:12:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
'Ikea look' = John Lewis look + 80 years (give or take)
'John Lewis look' = 'Selfridges look' <minus> £1000 (give or take)
do Selfridges still sell furniture?
Apparently yes, but I have to admit these look more like 'Habitat' than
country house furniture.

https://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/cat/home-tech/home/furniture/?fh_sort_by=price_asc
Peter Moylan
2021-04-26 10:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't find where I read it, but earlier I was reading about the flap
over the redecorating of the flat over #11 Downing Street*. I got the
bit about the total cost being undisclosed and covered secretly, but
one reference baffles me.
It was a disparaging reference to the "John Lewis look" of the
furniture.
OK...I know John Lewis is a department store, but what's the "John
Lewis look"? If it was the Ikea look, I could grok it.
'Ikea look' = John Lewis look + 80 years (give or take)
'John Lewis look' = 'Selfridges look' <minus> £1000 (give or take)
do Selfridges still sell furniture?
I assume that they sell fridges.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Loading...