Talk:Betsygate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Betsygate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 comments[edit]

Surely should be integrated with Iain Duncan Smith article? 82.69.28.55 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up lies[edit]

The article says: "Vindication and exoneration. A report from a Parliamentary watchdog cleared IDS of any wrongdoing: The Commissioner "found no evidence that Duncan Smith made improper claims under the Additional Costs Allowance in respect of his home". However, he found that a significant proportion of Mrs Duncan Smith's work, and that paid to Miss Annabelle Eyre and Mrs Christine Watson in their roles of Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition "would more appropriately have been funded out of Short Money than out of the Parliamentary Staffing Allowance. Nevertheless, it was accepted that there was an absence of definition of key terms meaning that members had no guidance to scope their two allowances. The Commons Standards Committee found that IDS's arrangements “were not ideal” and that no rules had been broken.[2]"

This simply isn't true. IDS was condemed by the committee's findings. Money was misused. the whole thing is biased in favour of IDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]