"Reclining on a chaise longue in red satin and skyscraper heels with heaving cleavage and scarlet lips, the Downing Street vamp gives it all she's got.
Now here she is, smouldering at the camera in a blue sleeveless halterneck dress; now with hands on her hips and coquettish in a white shift and 6in black sandals. Next it's a winsome smile on top of a pink summer dress.
What is almost more extraordinary than these photos of the Minister for Europe is the fact that in an interview which accompanied their publication in a magazine last weekend, Caroline Flint talks about the media's tiresome obsession with her appearance.
...
Asked the question in another recent interview, the response was the same. 'Yes,' she replied. 'It is frustrating. If you're walking to Downing Street and not smiling, you're a moany old bag; and if you are smiling, you're playing to the cameras.'
Heaven forbid that Ms Flint would play to the cameras, as these photos illustrate."
"Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary, also bought flats — or the freehold on a property they already owned — and claimed stamp duty and other moving costs."Finally and most seriously there was this piece that pointed out that "Caroline Flint the Europe Minister, has admitted not having read the Lisbon Treaty.
"Caroline Flint: I have read some of it but not all of it.
Mr. Francois: What!
Caroline Flint: I have been briefed on some of it."
"Mr. Francois: That is an extraordinary answer. The Minister for Europe has not read all of the Lisbon treaty. That is an absolutely extraordinary revelation. It is a bit like the Irish Prime Minister saying that he had not read it before the referendum. That is an incredible answer. If she is Minister for Europe, why has she not read the treaty?
The Chairman: Order. The Lisbon treaty is not entirely relevant to the documents under debate.
Mr. Francois: With respect, it is mentioned a number of times in the documents.
The Chairman: It is related, but it is not the document under debate this afternoon. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
Caroline Flint: The Lisbon treaty’s mutual assistance clause, article (1)49, is in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter, which states that countries have
“the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”, and as such—
Mr. Francois: You are supposed to be Minister for Europe; how can you not have read the treaty?"
"1.3 Fundamental principles
In July 1995, the House agreed to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament – this can be found on the internet here – which includes a number of general principles of personal conduct. These are based on concepts of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The broad principles set out below are derived from the Code of Conduct and underpin the allowance regime. When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles.
The principles are:
Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
This should be borne in mind at all times when examining MPs expenses.
Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
Bar-B-Qs, David Miliband's pot plants, etc.
Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation.
It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source.
Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
Quoting from The Telegraph: "Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years. Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, also switched his second home, which allowed him to improve extensively his family home in Derbyshire before buying a London town house also funded by the taxpayer. Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary, also bought flats — or the freehold on a property they already owned — and claimed stamp duty and other moving costs. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, claimed thousands of pounds to improve his constituency home after he had announced his resignation as an MP. He sold the property for a profit of £136,000." Well to my eye these "give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else"
Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
The actions taken by Speaker Martin, Gordon Brown and others in trying to restrict what information is to be made public and then today in getting the Police involved in looking for the leaker rather than investigating the possible frauds seems to go against the principle of "openness".
Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
So excuses about mistakes being made by clerical staff are not allowable excuses, bear that in mind when listening to the squirming Members.
The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
New heating systems because the water is too hot, multiple flat screen TVs in one house, etc. etc. etc.
Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.
All claims for just under the £250 disclosure limit should be considered suspect."
"City Minister Lord Myners did know about both the size and terms of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension, ex-RBS boss Sir Tom McKillop has claimed.
...
In a letter to the Treasury Select Committee, Sir Tom said there was "no elaborate ruse" by him or other members of the RBS board to pay Sir Fred more than he was contractually entitled to.
Sir Tom said evidence given by Lord Myners to the committee needed "clarification" and insisted the minister was told last October that the pension pot would be increased as a result of Sir Fred's early retirement.
Lord Myners told a committee hearing earlier this month that he did not ask Sir Tom the exact size of Sir Fred's pension during a meeting on October 11.
But Sir Tom said the minister was told in a private meeting that day that the pension would be "the sensitive issue and that it would be 'enormous"'.
He said the following day Mr Robert Scott, an independent RBS director, ran through further details of the arrangement.
"As well as referring to the undiscounted effect, and the consequence of early retirement and deemed service for the amount of the pension, Mr Scott also gave Lord Myners... a range of £15m to £20m as being Mr Scott's best estimate of what the pension liability might be," Sir Tom wrote.
The former RBS chairman said he wrote to the committee because "the circumstances relating to Sir Fred's pension have not been accurately represented".
Tory MP Michael Fallon, a member of the committee, said Lord Myners had misled Parliament and should quit.
"He has completely misled the committee and misled Parliament," he said.
"Misleading Parliament is a serious offence; misleading the public is even worse. The honourable thing to do now would be to resign.""
"Lord Myners 'Knew About Goodwin Pension' "
"McKillop: no RBS pension 'ruse' "and then proceed to report Sir Tom's letter without mentioning Michael Fallon's accusations and indeed without any emphasis on the claim that Paul Myners may have "misled the committee and misled Parliament .. misleading the people"
"Mr. Francois: With respect, the Minister has not answered the question. [Interruption.] Well, I do not think that she has. I shall put it to her again: is it a mutual defence guarantee? A number of EU countries regard it as one. She simply needs to say yes or no. Which is it?
Caroline Flint: What I have said is that, clearly, we have a right to say what missions we take part in. Therefore, we would not automatically be expected to go to the defence of another country in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I am happy to come back to that point with details about the article he refers to later in the debate.
Column number: 12
Mr. Francois: Given that the treaty is integral to the documents we are debating this afternoon, I am a little surprised at the continuing vagueness of the Minister’s answer. This is a really simple question: has the Minister read the elements of the Lisbon treaty that relate to defence?
Caroline Flint: I have read some of it but not all of it.
Mr. Francois: What!
Caroline Flint: I have been briefed on some of it.
Mr. Francois: That is an extraordinary answer. The Minister for Europe has not read all of the Lisbon treaty. That is an absolutely extraordinary revelation. It is a bit like the Irish Prime Minister saying that he had not read it before the referendum. That is an incredible answer. If she is Minister for Europe, why has she not read the treaty?
The Chairman: Order. The Lisbon treaty is not entirely relevant to the documents under debate.
Mr. Francois: With respect, it is mentioned a number of times in the documents.
The Chairman: It is related, but it is not the document under debate this afternoon. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
Caroline Flint: The Lisbon treaty’s mutual assistance clause, article (1)49, is in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter, which states that countries have
“the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”, and as such—
Mr. Francois: You are supposed to be Minister for Europe; how can you not have read the treaty?"
Luciana Leon, 30, Peru's youngest ever congresswoman and apparently the world's most beautiful female politician
Mara Carfagna is Italy's Minister for Equal Opportunities and came at no 4 in the poll
Alina Kabaeva, 26, is a former gymnast for Russia who is now a politician and came 12th in the poll
Yuri Fujikawa, 27, is known in Japan for her glamour and her youthful political success. She caused a stir by posing in her bikini to attract tourism to Hachinohe City and came 5th in the poll""Demeaning and dysfunctional" housing rules developed under Labour force people to manipulate the system in order to be housed, she said. Tenants and would-be tenants are forced into "a race to the bottom."
...
"We have a system which seems to be the family or the individual that can present themselves as practically on the verge of collapse are more likely to get a home than someone who is in housing need and is finding it difficult to combine work with paying market rents.
"They haven't really got much of a chance unless they present themselves with doctors' certificates and other things to indicate they just can't cope.
"Personally I find that demeaning and a dysfunctional system because in that there will be people who can play the game in order to get what they want – and we have created that system, we've forced people to play in that way.""
"those at risk of losing their home reached a 15-year high"Meanwhile the ever more ridiculous Caroline Fline parotted
"While we are not seeing repossessions on the same scale as the early 1990s, we are making sure the right advice and support is available for the minority of borrowers who may need it at the moment because of global economic pressures."I see that "Kirsty, Kirsty, Kirsty, is defending the indefensible as well as ever. Caroline Flint is rapidly moving into the upper echelons of the most risible government ministers.
