No need to alter MP perks.
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 11 May 2009
It seems that a minority of MPs have managed modest or very modest claims against costs, which are entirely unobjectionable.
I would argue that MPs have given themselves enough rope to hang themselves with the current self-enacted system.
This is a very good thing as it has allowed some of them to make proper fools of themselves, and thus demonstrate their true colours in a way their dissembling mouths do not adequately seem to do.
This is a very useful information and should be used in helping memebrs of the electorate form a judgement about whom they choose to vote for at the next election.
What is splendid is that the Daily Telegraph has had the bravery to publish these details, and thus once again demonstrating that the real guardians of democracy in the UK are not the elected Memebers of Parliament, but the free press.
What we need is not a change in the rules, but to leave this self hanging rope there so that the free press can trap greedy pigs with their snouts in the trough!
Discuss, ... if you like!
ATB from George
PS: I am inclined to think that a greater turn out at the election would be likely if there were one more line than traditionally on Ballot Papers. One which read
"None of the above."
If the "None of the aboves" formed the largest single block of votes than all the candidates selected by their sponsering parties would be rejected and a new election of a different set of candidates should be sprung following deselection of the existing crew and selection of a new collection more worth voting for.
Thus there would be no reason why people like Gordon Brown should ever darken the gangway of the House Of Commons again, which I would consider to be a very good thing ...
I would argue that MPs have given themselves enough rope to hang themselves with the current self-enacted system.
This is a very good thing as it has allowed some of them to make proper fools of themselves, and thus demonstrate their true colours in a way their dissembling mouths do not adequately seem to do.
This is a very useful information and should be used in helping memebrs of the electorate form a judgement about whom they choose to vote for at the next election.
What is splendid is that the Daily Telegraph has had the bravery to publish these details, and thus once again demonstrating that the real guardians of democracy in the UK are not the elected Memebers of Parliament, but the free press.
What we need is not a change in the rules, but to leave this self hanging rope there so that the free press can trap greedy pigs with their snouts in the trough!
Discuss, ... if you like!
ATB from George
PS: I am inclined to think that a greater turn out at the election would be likely if there were one more line than traditionally on Ballot Papers. One which read
"None of the above."
If the "None of the aboves" formed the largest single block of votes than all the candidates selected by their sponsering parties would be rejected and a new election of a different set of candidates should be sprung following deselection of the existing crew and selection of a new collection more worth voting for.
Thus there would be no reason why people like Gordon Brown should ever darken the gangway of the House Of Commons again, which I would consider to be a very good thing ...
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Alternatively, any MP who feels the Telegraph has reproted incorectly may choose to seek redress through a Libel action against the paper.
MPs need absolutely no defense after this, Don.
Clearly some are above reproach [eg. Mr H Benn], and some are beneath contempt ...
In this way it would be good value if the Tax-payer were to subsidise this publication free to every voter, so we could choose rationally a more cost efficient membership of the House Of Commons ...
I foresee a massive turn-out at the next GE.
ATB from George
MPs need absolutely no defense after this, Don.
Clearly some are above reproach [eg. Mr H Benn], and some are beneath contempt ...
In this way it would be good value if the Tax-payer were to subsidise this publication free to every voter, so we could choose rationally a more cost efficient membership of the House Of Commons ...
I foresee a massive turn-out at the next GE.
ATB from George
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I foresee a massive turn-out at the next GE
I doubt it.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:it would be good value if the Tax-payer were to subsidise this publication free to every voter,
If a tax-payer can't be bothered to cough up £1 (or whatever) I don't see why they should be sponsored by those of us who can be bothered.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
I think we may therefore be in disagreement, but I suspect that the British are rather passionate about democracy, where it is perceived to exist ...
The proof will come soon enough ...
ATB from George
The proof will come soon enough ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 18 June 2009 by Bob McC
I foresee a massive turn-out at the next GE.
why when Dave has had to pay back a further grand he nicked from us and Georgie boy is subject to an enquiry for allegedly claiming for more than his mortgage was worth?
why when Dave has had to pay back a further grand he nicked from us and Georgie boy is subject to an enquiry for allegedly claiming for more than his mortgage was worth?
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Bob,
Did I say that all the reprobates were on the Labour side?
I am sure that the GE turn out will be large and that the results will indeed be insteresting. There may be some surprising gaps in the current Party high commands in several instances, so that the winning Party after the election may first have select a leader - if their planned leader is not returned - before it becomes clear who the PM will be.
Even expected ministerial teams may not be returned, thus throwing into disaray the expected result. All grist to the mill and a good thing in my view.
Strangely I doubt the Tory leadship is any more immune to this possibility than the Labour.
Dear Don,
Your wish that the Police become involved and a full investigation of some of the cases does appear to have been granted. I am sure we can all be pleased that defference has been dropped in this instance.
However, given the width the rules have drawn up with, there would appear to be quite a few loop-holes, so whilst the activeties may easily be defined as being something done by someone without a proper sense of fairness, and srupulous moral standards, it may prove very difficult to actually make a prosecution stick in more than a small number of cases.
However, certain cases should indeed be prosecuted, and tried in a court according to the correct laws.
ATB from George
Did I say that all the reprobates were on the Labour side?
I am sure that the GE turn out will be large and that the results will indeed be insteresting. There may be some surprising gaps in the current Party high commands in several instances, so that the winning Party after the election may first have select a leader - if their planned leader is not returned - before it becomes clear who the PM will be.
Even expected ministerial teams may not be returned, thus throwing into disaray the expected result. All grist to the mill and a good thing in my view.
Strangely I doubt the Tory leadship is any more immune to this possibility than the Labour.
Dear Don,
Your wish that the Police become involved and a full investigation of some of the cases does appear to have been granted. I am sure we can all be pleased that defference has been dropped in this instance.
However, given the width the rules have drawn up with, there would appear to be quite a few loop-holes, so whilst the activeties may easily be defined as being something done by someone without a proper sense of fairness, and srupulous moral standards, it may prove very difficult to actually make a prosecution stick in more than a small number of cases.
However, certain cases should indeed be prosecuted, and tried in a court according to the correct laws.
ATB from George
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Mat Cork
When I stay in London my flat rate for expenses is £120 per night...carrying this through, my daily rate is well in excess of that offered to MPs for homes they most definitely need to fulfill their duties.
They've done nothing wrong in my book, storm in a teacup.
I work in the private sector - a world were folk by and large are motivated by greed and a self serving approach to their vocations. How odd that folk who work to serve others are turned on so quickly...a guilty conscience of the tabloid reading masses perhaps?
They've done nothing wrong in my book, storm in a teacup.
I work in the private sector - a world were folk by and large are motivated by greed and a self serving approach to their vocations. How odd that folk who work to serve others are turned on so quickly...a guilty conscience of the tabloid reading masses perhaps?
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Matt,
If you look at the title of the thread, I think you will see that my view is that there is no need to alter the rules - certainly not alter them much in any case - but rather examine carefully such issues as the abuses of home flipping to avoid tax and so forth.
I have no issue with MPs being properly rewarded for doing their job.
If only some of their number had not been abusing the system and hiding behind the secrecy surounding our government, then the Telegraph would not have been able to to make a vital point with its investigations.
Clearly the issue is not the system, but the transparency of the information.
Mr Brown still has failed to grasp this most elementary notion of complete transparency of information, but then he is so out of touch with reality that at least there is zero risk of his gaining a further term in office after the GE, unless I am am very much mistaken. [ ... in the voice of that old BBC F1 commentator, Murray Walker ...].
ATB from George
If you look at the title of the thread, I think you will see that my view is that there is no need to alter the rules - certainly not alter them much in any case - but rather examine carefully such issues as the abuses of home flipping to avoid tax and so forth.
I have no issue with MPs being properly rewarded for doing their job.
If only some of their number had not been abusing the system and hiding behind the secrecy surounding our government, then the Telegraph would not have been able to to make a vital point with its investigations.
Clearly the issue is not the system, but the transparency of the information.
Mr Brown still has failed to grasp this most elementary notion of complete transparency of information, but then he is so out of touch with reality that at least there is zero risk of his gaining a further term in office after the GE, unless I am am very much mistaken. [ ... in the voice of that old BBC F1 commentator, Murray Walker ...].
ATB from George
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Guido Fawkes
Nor do I, dear George, but I doubt they would agree with a salary cut.quote:I have no issue with MPs being properly rewarded for doing their job.
ATB Rotf (Guido Fawkes hat smiley)
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Now now!
I am sure there are some very nice MPs - totally honest guys and galls - who diserve every honestly claimed penny!
The problem is the rest of the scurvy, greedy, pig-nose-in-trough buggers!
Great that tomorrow's Telegraph supplement will allow all of us to peruse the informaytion, and decide for ourselves whether it is worth popping along to elections meeting of our sitting MPs with the intention of asking questions about this and that, and possibly the other - if you see what I mean.
Perhaps Georgie Boy and his mate Davy Wavy will not get in any more than that fathead, The Right Honourable Mr. Brown!
Interesting times ...
ATBh from George
I am sure there are some very nice MPs - totally honest guys and galls - who diserve every honestly claimed penny!
The problem is the rest of the scurvy, greedy, pig-nose-in-trough buggers!
Great that tomorrow's Telegraph supplement will allow all of us to peruse the informaytion, and decide for ourselves whether it is worth popping along to elections meeting of our sitting MPs with the intention of asking questions about this and that, and possibly the other - if you see what I mean.
Perhaps Georgie Boy and his mate Davy Wavy will not get in any more than that fathead, The Right Honourable Mr. Brown!
Interesting times ...
ATBh from George
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
PD
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Mat Cork
I agree George.
I think Brown and Cameron (for very different reasons are coming out of this appallingly).
I just think a flat rate for those outside London would sort it all out. It's a shocking system.
Isn't there some figure that out MPs are paid around half that of their counterparts in Germany, France and the Netherlands.
£70k is bugger all theses days...
Most of em are great, but there's a few rogues - if we paid a decent wage, we'd likely get better folk.
I think Brown and Cameron (for very different reasons are coming out of this appallingly).
I just think a flat rate for those outside London would sort it all out. It's a shocking system.
Isn't there some figure that out MPs are paid around half that of their counterparts in Germany, France and the Netherlands.
£70k is bugger all theses days...
Most of em are great, but there's a few rogues - if we paid a decent wage, we'd likely get better folk.
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Matt,
I might add to your notion of a better salary, the notion of a cap on the cost by paying fewer, better MPs more money.
That would be an advance on what we have today.
More than 600 is far too many.
Perhaps 300 would be a much more sensible number, and paid twice as much with the balance being kept for paying far more to members of the government - Ministers.
But all this subject to complete transparence about the amounts of money, and to whom it is paid.
Not hard to see whether they were being honest then.
ATB from George
PS: I would not give a fig if the leaders of both main parties were not returned at the election.
In my view the only thing that is better about the Tory leader than Mr Brown, is that he has not yet managed to bugger things up by being in the office of Prime Minister. He is a trained spin merchant. His back-griound is PR, which could not be a worse training ground for a politician outside the criminal classes.
Brown has simply demonstrated why he and Blair stitched up his sliipping into the Prime Minister's shoes.
He was obviously unelectable. He still is, but is so deluded that he actually thinks he can do the job inspite of over ten years of abject failure as a Chancelor.
Unfortunately Cameron is for me just as unelectable.
I might add to your notion of a better salary, the notion of a cap on the cost by paying fewer, better MPs more money.
That would be an advance on what we have today.
More than 600 is far too many.
Perhaps 300 would be a much more sensible number, and paid twice as much with the balance being kept for paying far more to members of the government - Ministers.
But all this subject to complete transparence about the amounts of money, and to whom it is paid.
Not hard to see whether they were being honest then.
ATB from George
PS: I would not give a fig if the leaders of both main parties were not returned at the election.
In my view the only thing that is better about the Tory leader than Mr Brown, is that he has not yet managed to bugger things up by being in the office of Prime Minister. He is a trained spin merchant. His back-griound is PR, which could not be a worse training ground for a politician outside the criminal classes.
Brown has simply demonstrated why he and Blair stitched up his sliipping into the Prime Minister's shoes.
He was obviously unelectable. He still is, but is so deluded that he actually thinks he can do the job inspite of over ten years of abject failure as a Chancelor.
Unfortunately Cameron is for me just as unelectable.
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Unfortunately Cameron is for me just as unelectable.
Agreed George...two very poor leaders.
Get a manifesto together George...
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Matt,
I think when I get older, that I may actually take a participatory interest in politics, but it is a hell of an undertaking to join this lot.
There is no party that would hold me in the sense that I am a sort of conservative that disappeared fifty years ago in many ways.
Not the go get, me-me style of Thatcher or the horrendously weak at the knee style of Heath, but more the consensus style of SuperMac[Millan], though of course he was to leave office at more or less the time I was born.
As for Labour, well they are a horrendous mess these days. Somehow the traditional working [class] vote is no longer enough to demand a truly socialist [not communist] party, so we have a terrible compromise which is neither fish nor poultry!
My feeling at the moment is that I shall be struggling with my conscience to vote for a party led by Cameron. He being the biggest objection to voting conservative. I am serious - I will oppose the party at every turn if he is still - as seems likely - leader at the time of an election, and for once supposrt the Lib-dems.
They diserve a crack of the whip in my view.
The Labour Party diserves extinction, and let I profoundly hope that their results at the election are so profoundly terrible that the Party machine implodes into infighting and anarrchy and division into a real Socialist Party, wnd the softer members can see themselves attracted to the Libe-dems, for never again must the country be offered the possibility of making the mistake of voting for a governement as terrible as the one we have had since Blair and Brown ousted Major.
It seems that quite a few are begining to conclude that Mr Major was much more successful than was previously thought.
Comaprison with Brown would be uncharitable to go into.
But on a personal level it seems that Major managed the leaving of office and closing down of his administration with a degree of human grace that seems entirely unlikely from the hapless brute we have occupying Number Ten now.
Major put the country before his own interests with the consequence that it was fashionable to deride him as being weak, but he left the economy in much fairer shape than he found it left him from Thatcher ... or than what the best efforts of Brown will leave it for his successor ...
May the end of this administration come quickly for sake of the country ... Seems that Brown only has his own reputation and the intersts of his own party in his priorities judging by his current painfully weak approach to problems. If it were not so important that he go, we could sympathise with his complete failure, but as a nation we cannot afford that luxury.
Why do not his own party put the country first and vote him down in a no confidence motion?
ATB from George
I think when I get older, that I may actually take a participatory interest in politics, but it is a hell of an undertaking to join this lot.
There is no party that would hold me in the sense that I am a sort of conservative that disappeared fifty years ago in many ways.
Not the go get, me-me style of Thatcher or the horrendously weak at the knee style of Heath, but more the consensus style of SuperMac[Millan], though of course he was to leave office at more or less the time I was born.
As for Labour, well they are a horrendous mess these days. Somehow the traditional working [class] vote is no longer enough to demand a truly socialist [not communist] party, so we have a terrible compromise which is neither fish nor poultry!
My feeling at the moment is that I shall be struggling with my conscience to vote for a party led by Cameron. He being the biggest objection to voting conservative. I am serious - I will oppose the party at every turn if he is still - as seems likely - leader at the time of an election, and for once supposrt the Lib-dems.
They diserve a crack of the whip in my view.
The Labour Party diserves extinction, and let I profoundly hope that their results at the election are so profoundly terrible that the Party machine implodes into infighting and anarrchy and division into a real Socialist Party, wnd the softer members can see themselves attracted to the Libe-dems, for never again must the country be offered the possibility of making the mistake of voting for a governement as terrible as the one we have had since Blair and Brown ousted Major.
It seems that quite a few are begining to conclude that Mr Major was much more successful than was previously thought.
Comaprison with Brown would be uncharitable to go into.
But on a personal level it seems that Major managed the leaving of office and closing down of his administration with a degree of human grace that seems entirely unlikely from the hapless brute we have occupying Number Ten now.
Major put the country before his own interests with the consequence that it was fashionable to deride him as being weak, but he left the economy in much fairer shape than he found it left him from Thatcher ... or than what the best efforts of Brown will leave it for his successor ...
May the end of this administration come quickly for sake of the country ... Seems that Brown only has his own reputation and the intersts of his own party in his priorities judging by his current painfully weak approach to problems. If it were not so important that he go, we could sympathise with his complete failure, but as a nation we cannot afford that luxury.
Why do not his own party put the country first and vote him down in a no confidence motion?
ATB from George
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by Mat Cork
A very fair summation George.
I am a socialist at heart, but have no time for this Labour administration.
I think they do deserve some credit for reducing unemployment so dramatically and bringing some equalisation to the regional distribution of wealth (this is often forgotten nowadays)...but they've not built on this and have become a self serving administration.
I think we've seen a shift in political-class alignment in recent years. I remember reading somewhere that a significant majority of doctors, lawyers and other professions which pull the nations better academic achievers now vote Labour and that the working class are now inclined to vote Tory. This certainly fits with my observations.
Major was imo, a very underated PM. He inherited a horrific mess and began to turn things around, even though this risked the security of his stay in office.
I've been lucky to visit and live in many countries, and I still maintain our government system stacks up pretty well.
I am a socialist at heart, but have no time for this Labour administration.
I think they do deserve some credit for reducing unemployment so dramatically and bringing some equalisation to the regional distribution of wealth (this is often forgotten nowadays)...but they've not built on this and have become a self serving administration.
I think we've seen a shift in political-class alignment in recent years. I remember reading somewhere that a significant majority of doctors, lawyers and other professions which pull the nations better academic achievers now vote Labour and that the working class are now inclined to vote Tory. This certainly fits with my observations.
Major was imo, a very underated PM. He inherited a horrific mess and began to turn things around, even though this risked the security of his stay in office.
I've been lucky to visit and live in many countries, and I still maintain our government system stacks up pretty well.
Posted on: 19 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
I especially agree that in spite of all that there is not another country with which I would happily swap systems of governement.
On the other hand I woulkd like to see some major repairs done to our system now.
A serious overhaul is needed, and then it can run along again for ages like the old Volvo-style thing that it is!
ATB from George
On the other hand I woulkd like to see some major repairs done to our system now.
A serious overhaul is needed, and then it can run along again for ages like the old Volvo-style thing that it is!
ATB from George
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by Derek Wright
quote:reducing unemployment so dramatically
Ha - you jest
The reduction in the first phase was due to the increase in the number of state employees or employees involved in government obsessions. This also takes people out of the job market and so prevents them being employed in useful jobs rather than in the doctrinaire non jobs they were sucked into.
The increase in unemployment now is a direct result of government ineptitude in running the economy so taking people out of the private sector.
You still have to see the loss of state sector jobs that is to come to assist in reducing debt.
4 million unemployed before long.
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I think they do deserve some credit for reducing unemployment so dramatically and bringing some equalisation to the regional distribution of wealth
God help us if that is the BEST that labour have achieved in the past 12 years or so - and I think you have overstated their success.
Derek has put their "dramatic" employment success into proper perspective.
Most of my relatives live in the North East, my daughter did her first degree at Newcastle and is now at Nottingham, and I travel around the UK myself quite a bit so I am "sort of" aware of regional variations of wealth. I can't actually dispute "Some" equalisation, but i haven't found a means of detecting the miniscule amount of "some".
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I think when I get older, that I may actually take a participatory interest in politics,
George, why wait? £65k pa (soon to be increased by 10% or 15%) plus £24k a year for a second home in London furnished with a half decent hifi set (cds3/555PS/252/300/Ovators - nothing too ostentatious!).....you know it makes sense!!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Don,
I imagine a bedsit in Seven Oaks [without an upgrade to the music] would suit as my second home!
ATB from George
I imagine a bedsit in Seven Oaks [without an upgrade to the music] would suit as my second home!
ATB from George
Posted on: 21 June 2009 by u5227470736789439
The Telegraph supplement proves to be a very level headed weighing up of the situation.
Not sensational in its style at all, even if some of the inmformation contain must seem at least surprising, I doubt that we shall see too many changes - if any - forced onto the publisher [via legal challenges] in terms of the information contained.
This is preciely the correct level of information required to cause MPs to become self-regulating on the issue. What the governement has issued in the same line is insufficient, and this does not surprise me.
Naturally the Telegraph has kept the information spare enough that it would not be easy to use the information to endanger the security of MPs.
Reading through this, i really do think a copy of it should be available in all Public Libraries, and also it would be very useful to have it all on line as well.
Thanks for all the contributions to what has been a very nice thread, IMO.
ATB from George
Not sensational in its style at all, even if some of the inmformation contain must seem at least surprising, I doubt that we shall see too many changes - if any - forced onto the publisher [via legal challenges] in terms of the information contained.
This is preciely the correct level of information required to cause MPs to become self-regulating on the issue. What the governement has issued in the same line is insufficient, and this does not surprise me.
Naturally the Telegraph has kept the information spare enough that it would not be easy to use the information to endanger the security of MPs.
Reading through this, i really do think a copy of it should be available in all Public Libraries, and also it would be very useful to have it all on line as well.
Thanks for all the contributions to what has been a very nice thread, IMO.
ATB from George
Posted on: 21 June 2009 by Guido Fawkes
Agreed - lots of MPs claim nothing - some of those who play fair are in a constituency adjacent to one where the MP claims for a whirlpool bath (I couldn't spell Jacuzzi). I think it is excellent in showing that some MPs are not money grabbing good for nothings who claim for paying council tax on non-existent properties (though of course many are, allegedly).quote:The Telegraph supplement proves to be a very level headed weighing up of the situation.
Posted on: 21 June 2009 by Christopher_M
quote:This [The Telegraph's supplement] is preciely the correct level of information required to cause MPs to become self-regulating on the issue. What the governement has issued in the same line is insufficient, and this does not surprise me.
Very well said George and this is why the title of your thread is so spot on. MPs have been given enough rope with their allowances system, and many of them have taken enough to hang themselves with. What is needed is better public scrutiny (of which good journalism is part) not necessarily tighter allowances.
The shame is that until the Telegraph did what it did, many journalists were not shining the beam of truth into dark corners.
Instead they concerned themselves with celebrity, lifestyle features, re-writing press-releases and all the other dross which passes for what is known these days as 'content'.
Best, Chris
Posted on: 22 June 2009 by 555
The Houses of Parliament culturally is a 19th century gentleman's club.
Tweaking the MPs expenses system isn't going to make it fit for purpose IMO.
Tweaking the MPs expenses system isn't going to make it fit for purpose IMO.