NationStates Jolt Archive

For those not up to date on the current media storm in the UK, links are:
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm)
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044998.stm)
and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8046287.stm), and pretty much every other story on the BBC news website.

Am I the only won who can't seem to work up any outrage about this? You put a group of ordinary people (and yes, politicians are human, despite what many of us may think) in an easily abusable system and, surprise, surprise, it gets abused.

More than that, it seems like really corrupt abuses (double claims, home flipping, false claims etc... ) are a relative minority involved. Who should be invetigated and dealt with - but by an actual committee not the outraged readershipTM of the Telegraph and Mail. Most MPs it seems just pushed it a little bit - which frankly we all do on expenses, and thus should be dealt with by reforming the system to close those loopholes, not a witch hunt.

It does seem to me that the papers have managed to get a nice juicy scandel going, it will sell papers, it will whip up a moral outrage, and they're running with it for all their worth and taking anyone who may have claimed even slightly more than they deem necessary or right.

Frankly, the way this is going, I'm getting more outraged and pissed off at the news than at the MPs involved.

So, to get a question in and stop this just being a rant, who does NSG think of this whole phenomena. Especially those of you in the UK, are you outraged at the moral bankruptcy of our MPs or could you care less?

Am I the only won who can't seem to work up any outrage about this? You put a group of ordinary people (and yes, politicians are human, despite what many of us may think) in an easily abusable system and, surprise, surprise, it gets abused.



I thought I was the only one who couldn't get pissed about it. It's hardly a surprise.

Like you I'm not really surprised, so not exactly outraged. But my lack of rage doesn't detract from the fact that what's going on is bang out of order.

Kudos, I suppose, must be given to the Torygraph for such a timely leak of information, right before the EU elections, seemingly playing right into the Conservatives' hands. And it may be having a profound effect (http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/ukip-breaking-through-on-19/); though we've got to remember that the EU elections are never the major parties' favourite part of the parliamentary session.

What's most shocking is the attitude of many MPs who don't seem to get how big an issue this whole nonsense is.

Maybe the British culture had been desensitized to such things?

http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/oth_ymstill2.jpg

Maybe the British culture had been desensitized to such things?
Perhaps, Minister.

Though I do think the fourth estate are being, at times, rather hyperbolic in their description of the UK citizenry's shock and outrage. Folks are angry, sure, but it's not as if this is the first blow to Parliament's reputation in the eyes of the public.

Torygraph
I like that.
profound effect (http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/ukip-breaking-through-on-19/);

Hardy Profound.

Like you I'm not really surprised, so not exactly outraged. But my lack of rage doesn't detract from the fact that what's going on is bang out of order.

It is out of order and needs to be dealt with. But I somehow don't think a paper-led witch hunt is the way forward. We're in great danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by over-cutting expenses and thus ensuring that either only the independently wealthy can run for office or that they have to find other sources of income - which leads to a whole different aspect of corruption, and one, IMHO, which is far worse.

Kudos, I suppose, must be given to the Torygraph for such a timely leak of information, right before the EU elections, seemingly playing right into the Conservatives' hands. And it may be having a profound effect (http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/ukip-breaking-through-on-19/); though we've got to remember that the EU elections are never the major parties' favourite part of the parliamentary session.


This is pissing me off, the last thing we need is for UKIP and BNP to make even more gains in the EU. The reason why we seem not to be getting anything out of the EU is because we keep electing parties to represent us there who want nothing more than to get rid of the thing rather than one who'll actually work within the system and ensure that we get to offer input and direction to what is happening.

Hardy Profound.
Not as much as if this was a GE, no, but UKIP potentially beating Labour in a national election is something.

Both for Labour and the Tories.

Not as much as if this was a GE, no, but UKIP potentially beating Labour in a national election is something.

Both for Labour and the Tories.

It's a protest vote really - their support will drop after, but by then the damage will be done.

Not as much as if this was a GE, no, but UKIP potentially beating Labour in a national election is something.

Both for Labour and the Tories.

You think they will do that, really? They will make gains, but I doubt UKIP will beat Labour. UKIP will jump on anything to turn people towards them.


The torries aren't innocent by any means. Cameron's claim that he has purged the Conservatives of their bad image has been shown to be bullshit.

There's also this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567121/Tony-Blairs-expenses-shredded-mistake--just-public.html) little gem: Tony Blair's expenses were shredded.

The torries aren't innocent by any means. Cameron's claim that he has purged the Conservatives of their bad image has been shown to be bullshit.

None of the major parties are going to get away on this one - of course the only reason the small parties are is because they don't have many (or any) MPs, which means they care cry about it all they like and look completely innocent. Despite the fact that if they did have an MP, they'd probably be doing the same thing (indeed for UKIP MEPs do exactly the same).

The Lib Dems may just squeeze out of this looking slightly better due to a) having less MPs, b) not being invovled in the worst bits (ie the overtly and deliberately dodgy stuff) and c) most of them having published their expenses on their websites months ago.

But even so, anyone sitting in parliament is getting hit with this one, no matter who they are or how they've claimed - apart from maybe those handful who didn't claim anything, or minimal amounts, who are being lauded as paragons of moral purity.

There's also this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567121/Tony-Blairs-expenses-shredded-mistake--just-public.html) little gem: Tony Blair's expenses were shredded.
No surprise, tbh.
None of the major parties are going to get away on this one - of course the only reason the small parties are is because they don't have many (or any) MPs, which means they care cry about it all they like and look completely innocent. Despite the fact that if they did have an MP, they'd probably be doing the same thing (indeed for UKIP MEPs do exactly the same).

The Lib Dems may just squeeze out of this looking slightly better due to a) having less MPs, b) not being invovled in the worst bits (ie the overtly and deliberately dodgy stuff) and c) most of them having published their expenses on their websites months ago.

But even so, anyone sitting in parliament is getting hit with this one, no matter who they are or how they've claimed - apart from maybe those handful who didn't claim anything, or minimal amounts, who are being lauded as paragons of moral purity.
The Lib Dems already look the best of the 3.

Browns refusal to apologise was a mistake, with our stupid press.

No surprise, tbh.

The Lib Dems already look the best of the 3.

I quite like their suggestions for reforms to - make it so the second home allowance is only applicable to rented properties and pays for rent, council tax and bills. It would ensure the second home allowance does what it's meant to - cover the costs that MPs have for having, in the course of their job, to maintain two homes, whilst ensuring that they make no profit from it (through then owning a house, furniture etc). An alternative, I think they use in Sweden, is to have government owned designated accomodation in London for MPs to use. This way it takes the claim out of the MPs hands entirely and ensures the public gets any benefit/profit from ownership and sale.

Browns refusal to apologise was a mistake, with our stupid press.

The Speaker's actions didn't help either - given in many ways ensuring the rules were kept to is in his purview.

They should buy up one of the bankrupt buy to let developments in London and use it to provide MP housing. That way no money need ever change hands.

I quite like their suggestions for reforms to - make it so the second home allowance is only applicable to rented properties and pays for rent, council tax and bills. It would ensure the second home allowance does what it's meant to - cover the costs that MPs have for having, in the course of their job, to maintain two homes, whilst ensuring that they make no profit from it (through then owning a house, furniture etc). An alternative, I think they use in Sweden, is to have government owned designated accomodation in London for MPs to use. This way it takes the claim out of the MPs hands entirely and ensures the public gets any benefit/profit from ownership and sale.

MP's need to make a little money surely. Or do they have pensions?

Did you here some of the claims? Biscuits? KitKats? wtf?

The Speaker's actions didn't help either - given in many ways ensuring the rules were kept to is in his purview.

Apparently they're gonna axe him.

It is out of order and needs to be dealt with. But I somehow don't think a paper-led witch hunt is the way forward. We're in great danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by over-cutting expenses and thus ensuring that either only the independently wealthy can run for office or that they have to find other sources of income - which leads to a whole different aspect of corruption, and one, IMHO, which is far worse.
I have been pondering this since the whole business started dominating headlines.

There's been a number of reports criticising MPs for expenses claims on food, yet surely unless their independently wealthy, or have an external source of income, how are they meant to feed themselves for up to five years?

The Lib Dems may just squeeze out of this looking slightly better due to a) having less MPs, b) not being invovled in the worst bits (ie the overtly and deliberately dodgy stuff) and c) most of them having published their expenses on their websites months ago.
Dinnie worry, there's always Lembit Opik to bring them down (http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/05/lembit-self-destructs-on-r5-awful.html).



You think they will do that, really? They will make gains, but I doubt UKIP will beat Labour. UKIP will jump on anything to turn people towards them.
If the YouGov poll is accurate, then they might be in with a chance.

It's interesting seeing the Tory faithful slide towards UKIP, there's an argument to be made, which would be supported by our own The Blessed chris, that though Cameron may be making gains with certain (large) sections of the great unwashed, he's doing so at expense for some of Tory old guard.

Further, it's interesting considering a certain view (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece) of the incoming Tory youth.

Apparently they're gonna axe [the Speaker of the House]
More likely he'll stand down at the end of this parliamentary session.


An alternative, I think they use in Sweden, is to have government owned designated accomodation in London for MPs to use. This way it takes the claim out of the MPs hands entirely and ensures the public gets any benefit/profit from ownership and sale.

They should buy up one of the bankrupt buy to let developments in London and use it to provide MP housing. That way no money need ever change hands.
A good idea; construct a system that can't be abused.

Financially at least.

MP's need to make a little money surely. Or do they have pensions?

MPs earn about £60,000 a year and get a decent pension, or was that sarcasm :p

Did you here some of the claims? Biscuits? KitKats? wtf?


Food expense claims, which though it's arguably if they should be covered, were legitimate claims. Frankly, I don't know anyone who, if has the business expense account, won't claim for absolutely everything they eat whilst on said business. Those claims I'd say raise questions about the system maybe and should they cover it, not the actual MPs themselves.

MPs earn about £60,000 a year and get a decent pension, or was that sarcasm :p.
Twas.:tongue:


Food expense claims, which though it's arguably if they should be covered, were legitimate claims. Frankly, I don't know anyone who, if has the business expense account, won't claim for absolutely everything they eat whilst on said business. Those claims I'd say raise questions about the system maybe and should they cover it, not the actual MPs themselves.

Aye, the whole system is flawed. It needs to have stronger guidlines, be more clear about what is acceptable and to have tighter restrictions and to enforce these better.


(That's not worded well, but, meh.)

It's interesting seeing the Tory faithful slide towards UKIP, there's an argument to be made, which would be supported by our own The Blessed chris, that though Cameron may be making gains with certain (large) sections of the great unwashed, he's doing so at expense for some of Tory old guard.

Further, it's interesting considering a certain view (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece) of the incoming Tory youth.


That's scary, frankly I hope that the Lib Dems use this fact to it's full advantage and ensure as many disaffected, more left-wing (or at least socially liberal) labour supporters comer their way not in the tories direction.

Food expense claims, which though it's arguably if they should be covered, were legitimate claims. Frankly, I don't know anyone who, if has the business expense account, won't claim for absolutely everything they eat whilst on said business. Those claims I'd say raise questions about the system maybe and should they cover it, not the actual MPs themselves.

Normally there is a per diem for business travelers because they are staying in hotels and so can't eat at home. Expense accounts don't normally cover food costs at a second home.

If the YouGov poll is accurate, then they might be in with a chance.

It's interesting seeing the Tory faithful slide towards UKIP, there's an argument to be made, which would be supported by our own The Blessed chris, that though Cameron may be making gains with certain (large) sections of the great unwashed, he's doing so at expense for some of Tory old guard.
It'd be awful if the torries got in power becuase of the "great unwashed" vote. Why are all (British; cos Obama's lovely) politicians lying, cheating idiots?
Further, it's interesting considering a certain view (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece) of the incoming Tory youth.

...
David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader

Pfft.

Normally there is a per diem for business travelers because they are staying in hotels and so can't eat at home. Expense accounts don't normally cover food costs at a second home.

True, but the point I'm making is that these expense accounts also covered food at the second home - therefore said food was claimed for. It seems petty to go after people for claiming expenses they were entitled to rather than asking whether they should have been entitled to those expenses in the first place.

For those not up to date on the current media storm in the UK, links are:
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm)
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044998.stm)
and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8046287.stm), and pretty much every other story on the BBC news website.

Am I the only won who can't seem to work up any outrage about this? You put a group of ordinary people (and yes, politicians are human, despite what many of us may think) in an easily abusable system and, surprise, surprise, it gets abused.

More than that, it seems like really corrupt abuses (double claims, home flipping, false claims etc... ) are a relative minority involved. Who should be invetigated and dealt with - but by an actual committee not the outraged readershipTM of the Telegraph and Mail. Most MPs it seems just pushed it a little bit - which frankly we all do on expenses, and thus should be dealt with by reforming the system to close those loopholes, not a witch hunt.

It does seem to me that the papers have managed to get a nice juicy scandel going, it will sell papers, it will whip up a moral outrage, and they're running with it for all their worth and taking anyone who may have claimed even slightly more than they deem necessary or right.

Frankly, the way this is going, I'm getting more outraged and pissed off at the news than at the MPs involved.

So, to get a question in and stop this just being a rant, who does NSG think of this whole phenomena. Especially those of you in the UK, are you outraged at the moral bankruptcy of our MPs or could you care less?

I am outraged by the whole thing, not supprised though. And we should be outraged. What you say is obviously true. However, politcians should be whiter than white, these people run the country and if the trust between us and them goes then I really couldn't say how that would effect the country.

Myself a life long Labour voter was dismayed to find myself agreeing with what David Cameron said just yesterday about thee whole thing, 'It is not about politics, it is about morality'

These people earn at least twice my wage and then to claim almost the same again to furnish their second home! Unbeliveable, I mean I earn enough to keep me and mine in a comfatable life style, I can afford to go out and purchase any thing for the house when the need or want arrives. If I can do this then why should anybody earning twice my wage need me to pay for the same thing?

Yes indeed, I am outraged and disgusted *sigh* but then the shine for many has already gone where our politicians are concerned.

I am outraged by the whole thing, not supprised though. And we should be outraged. What you say is obviously true. However, politcians should be whiter than white, these people run the country and if the trust between us and them goes then I really couldn't say how that would effect the country.

Truly? You expect politicians to be whiter than white? Personally I expect them to be human beings and I expect them to use their human, and thus inevitably flawed, judgement to do what they consider best for us. Expecting any more does more to damage turst than anything else, as those expectations are inevitably broken. It also forces MPs on the defensive and into a spin and cover up mentality when really I would much rather they were open and honest about they fact that they are human, they make mistakes.

Because I think MPs are human, I think the system should be designed so that it can't be abused so easily. I keep my annoyance for the system in place and anger to those few who were being blatantly corrupt, not the majority who were using a broken system within it's rules.

I am outraged by the whole thing, not supprised though. And we should be outraged. What you say is obviously true. However, politcians should be whiter than white, these people run the country and if the trust between us and them goes then I really couldn't say how that would effect the country.

Myself a life long Labour voter was dismayed to find myself agreeing with what David Cameron said just yesterday about thee whole thing, 'It is not about politics, it is about morality'

These people earn at least twice my wage and then to claim almost the same again to furnish their second home! Unbeliveable, I mean I earn enough to keep me and mine in a comfatable life style, I can afford to go out and purchase any thing for the house when the need or want arrives. If I can do this then why should anybody earning twice my wage need me to pay for the same thing?

Yes indeed, I am outraged and disgusted *sigh* but then the shine for many has already gone where our politicians are concerned.

QFT.

If I were to fiddle my expenses it is deemed as gross misconduct and I'm sacked, yet these guys seem quite happy to use my money as a taxpayer to feather their nests.
I'm sorry, but 'forgetting' you had paid off your mortgage yet claiming £16000 is fraud - go to jail
If you can immediately offer to pay back £41000 you are not skint - you didn't need that money

I can understand some people not really bothering about this, but would ask how many are UK taxpayers - we should ALL be bothered:mad:

Truly? You expect politicians to be whiter than white? Personally I expect them to be human beings and I expect them to use their human, and thus inevitably flawed, judgement to do what they consider best for us. Expecting any more does more to damage turst than anything else, as those expectations are inevitably broken. It also forces MPs on the defensive and into a spin and cover up mentality when really I would much rather they were open and honest about they fact that they are human, they make mistakes.

Because I think MPs are human, I think the system should be designed so that it can't be abused so easily. I keep my annoyance for the system in place and anger to those few who were being blatantly corrupt, not the majority who were using a broken system within it's rules.

Yes I do, I shouldn't but I do, politicians should endevour to be and to remain uncorrupt.

Yes of course they are human, but we humans can control our baser emotions, we can be true and ungreedy, it is possible, and anybody in power must strive even harder than us schmoos in the street.

It really is not hard to refuse to engage in criminal or underhanded behaviour, I refrain from it every single day of my life, I too am human, and so are the tens of millions of every day people that also act in a moraly correct manor.

No man, 'they are only human' is no excuse.

QFT.

If I were to fiddle my expenses it is deemed as gross misconduct and I'm sacked, yet these guys seem quite happy to use my money as a taxpayer to feather their nests.
I'm sorry, but 'forgetting' you had paid off your mortgage yet claiming £16000 is fraud - go to jail
If you can immediately offer to pay back £41000 you are not skint - you didn't need that money


Yes, but there is a difference between those who did fiddle their expenses, who should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly and those who used the system as intended. The current media coverage and outrage is going after all equally. Furthermore, said investigations should be carried out by the proper channels not the court of public opinion. That doesn't mean the media shouldn't be covering it by any stretch but the current witch hunt and baying for blood will end up being counter-productive because quick knee-jerk reactions will be taken to appease people and the underlying real problems won't be dealt with.

Meh...

Right now I'm more concerned about my own survival when it comes to money. I don't have time to fret over other peoples claims and expenses.

Yes, but there is a difference between those who did fiddle their expenses, who should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly and those who used the system as intended. The current media coverage and outrage is going after all equally. Furthermore, said investigations should be carried out by the proper channels not the court of public opinion. That doesn't mean the media shouldn't be covering it by any stretch but the current witch hunt and baying for blood will end up being counter-productive because quick knee-jerk reactions will be taken to appease people and the underlying real problems won't be dealt with.

You are correct, we all know and appreciate the truth of what you say(well at least I do) however, that does not mean we should not be bloody angry.

True, but the point I'm making is that these expense accounts also covered food at the second home - therefore said food was claimed for. It seems petty to go after people for claiming expenses they were entitled to rather than asking whether they should have been entitled to those expenses in the first place.

Yeah. That's true.

I guess what I'm saying though is that it's not as if the whole expenses thing is new to the world. It's been going on for some time. So it seems odd that it should be such a badly designed system, or the people participating in it had no idea that anything was amiss. Further, I'd imagine they had some input in its adoption. They are after all parliament.

And such a shambolic mess over something that it so trivially easy to figure out - because as I said there are literally millions of other entities that do expenses - doesn't speak well of the ability of that lot to govern anything.

On the matter of pay. MPs should make the average national wage and have only defined benefit pensions with identical tax treatment to the ordinary voter. That way their interests would be directly aligned with the taxpayer.

I guarantee that would go a long way to fixing income inequality.

And such a shambolic mess over something that it so trivially easy to figure out - because as I said there are literally millions of other entities that do expenses - doesn't speak well of the ability of that lot to govern anything.

That's true, I never said they weren't incompetent in government :p Though I suspect the rules really suffered from legacy issues and design by committee.

On the matter of pay. MPs should make the average national wage and have only defined benefit pensions with identical tax treatment to the ordinary voter. That way their interests would be directly aligned with the taxpayer.

I guarantee that would go a long way to fixing income inequality.

Mean or median?

Though on a more serious note this would mean a large number of talented individuals would not go into politics because they could earn significantly more in the private sector - we are generally talking about, on paper, highly qualified individuals here. What you'd be left with are the extreme nutjobs, those who really want to make a difference (a minority and may be in with the former category) and the independently wealthy. I fear it's a satisfying but ultimatiely impractical solution.

Yes, but there is a difference between those who did fiddle their expenses, who should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly and those who used the system as intended. The current media coverage and outrage is going after all equally. Furthermore, said investigations should be carried out by the proper channels not the court of public opinion. That doesn't mean the media shouldn't be covering it by any stretch but the current witch hunt and baying for blood will end up being counter-productive because quick knee-jerk reactions will be taken to appease people and the underlying real problems won't be dealt with.

I take your point here - the whole system sucks. I still think there is a very fine line between fiddled and legitimate expenses. An MP can chose which house is his or her main residence and base their expenses claims accordingly. Hence they can do up one house on allowances, switch houses and then do the other one up (and making more profit on their resale - which can also be tax free depending on thier choice).
An MP can then stand up and thruthfully say 'I didn't break the rules'. What galls me is they knew the rules (cos they probably made them) and have systematically abused them
I also think the 'trial by media' is justified, because lets face it, they weren't going to police themselves and own up to their little 'oversights'

Though on a more serious note this would mean a large number of talented individuals would not go into politics because they could earn significantly more in the private sector - we are generally talking about, on paper, highly qualified individuals here. What you'd be left with are the extreme nutjobs, those who really want to make a difference (a minority and may be in with the former category) and the independently wealthy. I fear it's a satisfying but ultimatiely impractical solution.

Mean.

I disagree it would alter the balance that much. There are two types of MP, ones who do it for the money (tony bliar for example) and ones who don't (say vince cable).

The ones who don't, won't care about things like wages anyway. But the fact is the ones who are doing it for the money probably couldn't do much better than mean anyway. 64,000 pounds is not really a gargantuan salary, sort of what a second rate dentist makes. So I figure the ones who are in it for the salary should have their interests aligned with everyone else on a wage.

(And of course HM's gov provides their housing, staff &c. so they don't see a penny more than they earn).

Mean.

I disagree it would alter the balance that much. There are two types of MP, ones who do it for the money (tony bliar for example) and ones who don't (say vince cable).

The ones who don't, won't care about things like wages anyway. But the fact is the ones who are doing it for the money probably couldn't do much better than mean anyway. 64,000 pounds is not really a gargantuan salary, sort of what a second rate dentist makes. So I figure the ones who are in it for the salary should have their interests aligned with everyone else on a wage.

(And of course HM's gov provides their housing, staff &c. so they don't see a penny more than they earn).

Yet 64k PA as a wage isn't monkey nuts is it.

Yet 64k PA as a wage isn't monkey nuts is it.

It's not a small salary. But on the other hand it's about what a head teacher of a largish high school makes, less than a solicitor at a magic circle firm, middling dentist, talented plumber &c.

If these people are super-duper talented they should easily be able to make more than that.

Of course, if most of them actually are the microcephalic bumblefucks that I suspect they actually are, then they are overpaid in any case.

I really think linking their salaries to the average worker would do wonders for the standard of living in the UK.

It's not a small salary. But on the other hand it's about what a head teacher of a largish high school makes, less than a solicitor at a magic circle firm, middling dentist, talented plumber &c.

If these people are super-duper talented they should easily be able to make more than that.

Of course, if most of them actually are the microcephalic bumblefucks that I suspect they actually are, then they are overpaid in any case.

I really think linking their salaries to the average worker would do wonders for the standard of living in the UK.

I agree actualy. I have always thought that MP's saleires should just be a tiny, wee, little smidgin amount, not enough to live on. That the role of MP should be part time to enable them to work for a living, and there be absolutely no perks at all, that they cannot improve their lives in a moneytary way by the contacts they make, that becoming an MP automaticly excludes one from running his own business. That way the only people willing to do the job would be those who really care about the running of the country.

I agree actualy. I have always thought that MP's saleires should just be a tiny, wee, little smidgin amount, not enough to live on. That the role of MP should be part time to enable them to work for a living, and there be absolutely no perks at all, that they cannot improve their lives in a moneytary way by the contacts they make, that becoming an MP automaticly excludes one from running his own business. That way the only people willing to do the job would be those who really care about the running of the country.

Or those who are independently wealthy or horrifically corrupt.

I disagree, the wage should be decent and liveable for full time work. But do like the idea of it related to average wages, not necessarily at the average wage but certainly linked to it.

Or those who are independently wealthy or horrifically corrupt.

I disagree, the wage should be decent and liveable for full time work. But do like the idea of it related to average wages, not necessarily at the average wage but certainly linked to it.

Perhaps, but how many independantly wealthy folk do you know that are not involved in business?

The whole débâcle seems to me to stem out of the outrage towards banking executives and their bonuses/pensions. The MPs criticised them and are now found out to be similarly, but much less so, abusing a system for personal gain. Added to this hypocritical turnaround, there's also a feeling that MPs should have been living within reasonable means in this economic climate (even though many of these claims are from many months ago).

However, I lol'd when the priest at evensong on Sunday said a prayer for politicians during this storm: I wasn't sure if he thought they were innocent or needed forgiveness.

Perhaps, but how many independantly wealthy folk do you know that are not involved in business?

Old Money TM. There's still enough of it around

I don't want it to be limited to those who either inherited wealth or made a lot of money in business (in whatever capacity) so they could then go into politics. I don't think the amount of money you have, however it's made, is a good yardstick of how qualified you are to run for office. It's the system we used to have and the result was a House of Commons who's socio-economic make-up was even more divorced and out of touch from the average person that it is now.

Or those who are independently wealthy or horrifically corrupt.

I disagree, the wage should be decent and liveable for full time work. But do like the idea of it related to average wages, not necessarily at the average wage but certainly linked to it.

I wouldn't take the raw average. I'd say it should be based upon head of household in full time employment. But I think that if even a sizable chunk of MPs had to live on that they'd be far more receptive to the problems that actually faced their constituents. It certainly would have done a lot to address things like the north south divide and loss of skilled manufacturing jobs.

I don't want it to be limited to those who either inherited wealth or made a lot of money in business (in whatever capacity) so they could then go into politics. I don't think the amount of money you have, however it's made, is a good yardstick of how qualified you are to run for office. It's the system we used to have and the result was a House of Commons who's socio-economic make-up was even more divorced and out of touch from the average person that it is now.

That's a problem with candidate selection and the voters though. And look, being an ordinary MP isn't that difficult. So you could probably persuade the local primary school teacher to do it for a bit. The job is basically show up and vote the right way for the three line whip stuff, and show up for the two line whip. And those things are set pretty much during the election.

But all the other stuff that election campaigns aren't run on - and really where the general public ends up getting screwed - it would be useful to have people in parliament who would be instantly effected by the consequences of whatever decision is taken. Say for example every MP had to use public transport all the time. No more taxis and government cars. I bet you'd get a very different transport policy overnight. It's easy to make tough decisions when it doesn't personally effect you.

Old Money TM. There's still enough of it around

I don't want it to be limited to those who either inherited wealth or made a lot of money in business (in whatever capacity) so they could then go into politics. I don't think the amount of money you have, however it's made, is a good yardstick of how qualified you are to run for office. It's the system we used to have and the result was a House of Commons who's socio-economic make-up was even more divorced and out of touch from the average person that it is now.


Granted, but again they all have their hands in a business or two. I mean old money remains old money by using it to get new money. If umm you see what I mean?

Remember that I also proposed that absolutly no monetary gain can be made by MP's under these rules, that means no use of contacts made. I also said that MP's are not allowed to run any business. By keeping these rules and the wage low, I can only see those willing to sacrifice high wages and perks of the job, for the betterment of the country as a whole being even mildly interested in doing the job.

I guess the British public is bored of witch hunting bank CEOs, so now they're witch hunting expense scamming MPs.

I think this debate also opens up one around de-centralising government. By that I mean more autonomy to regional assemblies to stop the massive expense of having to commute to and live in London (especially for Scottish and Northern Irish MPs)
I would also like to propose that those MPs who sit in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have a reduced say in Westminster - make Westminster the English parliament and let the others run their own affairs
To link this back to the topic of expenses, it would have stopped McGuiness, Adams and Co claiming half a million quid in London allowances when they refuse to sit in Parliament.

That's a problem with candidate selection and the voters though. And look, being an ordinary MP isn't that difficult. So you could probably persuade the local primary school teacher to do it for a bit. The job is basically show up and vote the right way for the three line whip stuff, and show up for the two line whip. And those things are set pretty much during the election.
The problem is that since government ministers are chosen from the house, that can't be a parliament-wide approach right now. Someone needs to be elected on the basis of being a good Chancellor, having a desirable attitude to criminal justice and immigration, or representing the Arts and Culture or sports or whatever. If every MP was simply a primary school teacher, who would be the Prime Minister? And could they be trusted to do a good job (all jibes about the effectiveness of Gordon Brown aside)?

A lot of this could be avoided by placing the right of Government with the second house. Sure, massive reform is necessary, but that's kinda overdue anyway. In any case, it would take time, so for the near future, we need to stick with the current system until we can build a new one, and that means MPs standing up for election with the intention of being a governing Minister rather than simply a community representative.

But all the other stuff that election campaigns aren't run on - and really where the general public ends up getting screwed - it would be useful to have people in parliament who would be instantly effected by the consequences of whatever decision is taken.
Here's an idea - why not eventually do away with seats in the commons as a long-term elected position and have different groups of people vote on new bills as a sort of jury duty? That way, there's no distinction, and people really do vote in the intention of "how does it affect us?"

Here's an idea - why not eventually do away with seats in the commons as a long-term elected position and have different groups of people vote on new bills as a sort of jury duty? That way, there's no distinction, and people really do vote in the intention of "how does it affect us?"

The issue is that people will just vote on "how does it affect us" not, "how does it affect me, my neighbour, Mrs X down the street or Mr Y living 200 miles away". How would you choose who was on these juries to ensure it was an equal distribution of groups, locations and SES. How would you ensure that, unlike jury duty, it didn't just end up being those not smart enough to get out of it? Or that it wouldn't get hijacked by special interest groups. It's the same argument as the problem with true direct democracy, it seems like a nice idea and might work at a local level, but once you get to a national level you will find that minority groups get trampled on in favour of majority interests.

I would also like to propose that those MPs who sit in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have a reduced say in Westminster
No MP sits in both Holyrood and Westminster, or both Cardiff and Westminster, or AFAIK Stormont and Westminster (though I'm a bit foggy on NI representation).

In Scotland, Wales and (I think) NI, there's separate representatives for the UK Parliament and the devolved Parliaments.

No MP sits in both Holyrood and Westminster, or both Cardiff and Westminster, or AFAIK Stormont and Westminster (though I'm a bit foggy on NI representation).

In Scotland, Wales and (I think) NI, there's separate representatives for the UK Parliament and the devolved Parliaments.

Indeed. Personally I'd support a devolved parliament(s)/assembley(s) for England too, if we're talking about the West Lothian question. But I'd say that's moving things somewhat off topic.

What more irritates me is less the fact that this is going on (and let's face it, if I were an MP I would be doing the same thing) and more their reaction to it. Besides, there's something amusing about getting the taxpayer to clean your moat.

I think this debate also opens up one around de-centralising government. By that I mean more autonomy to regional assemblies to stop the massive expense of having to commute to and live in London (especially for Scottish and Northern Irish MPs)
I would also like to propose that those MPs who sit in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have a reduced say in Westminster - make Westminster the English parliament and let the others run their own affairs
A legislature for 50,000,000 Englishmen and women isn't going to be any more decentralised than one for 60,000,000 Brits.

To link this back to the topic of expenses, it would have stopped McGuiness, Adams and Co claiming half a million quid in London allowances when they refuse to sit in Parliament.
To be fair, the Sinn Fein leadership still have an important role in Westminster.

No MP sits in both Holyrood and Westminster, or both Cardiff and Westminster, or AFAIK Stormont and Westminster (though I'm a bit foggy on NI representation).

In Scotland, Wales and (I think) NI, there's separate representatives for the UK Parliament and the devolved Parliaments.

I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make was that having seperate representatives is doubling up. Should a Scottish MP sit in their own house and not Westminster (perhaps Gordon Brown should represent Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath up there, not down here)

I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make was that having seperate representatives is doubling up. Should a Scottish MP sit in their own house and not Westminster (perhaps Gordon Brown should represent Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath up there, not down here)

No, because the central UK government decides a great many things affecting all it's constituent countries not just England. Therefore the Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish need their representation and their MPs need their say. The fact that they can also vote on English only issues, whilst the same is not true the other way round is a seperate issue called the West Lothian problem, and is probably best dealt with by giving England regional assembleys of some description or other.

It's like saying that a US state doesn't need to send anyone to congress, because it's doubling up and they have their own state legislature. The concept is somewhat rediculous

No, because the central UK government decides a great many things affecting all it's constituent countries not just England. Therefore the Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish need their representation and their MPs need their say. The fact that they can also vote on English only issues, whilst the same is not true the other way round is a seperate issue called the West Lothian problem, and is probably best dealt with by giving England regional assembleys of some description or other.

It's like saying that a US state doesn't need to send anyone to congress, because it's doubling up and they have their own state legislature. The concept is somewhat rediculous

OK, for the sake of debate lets take it one step further. If a central UK government decides matters concerning all its constituent countries, why have decentralised assemblies who can veto those and make their own policy (university fees, prescription charges etc)
Or taking your position further, why don't we have an English assembly for purely English matters?
I could see myself agreeing with either arguement but sometimes have trouble seeing the benefit of both running together and creating even more 'postcode lotteries'

I want to care, I really do. But I can't, I just can't.

Looks like my prediction was wrong, Sky News is reporting that Speaker Martin will resign over expenses (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Speaker-Michael-Martin-To-Resign-Say-Sky-Sources/Article/200905315284430?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284430_Speaker_Michael_Martin_To_Resign_Say_Sky_Sources) this afternoon.

Let's hope his early retirement, very much forced by statements from Clegg and Cameron, among others, is not the only concession Parliament will give. Though his position was becoming increasingly untenable, there's a fear he'll simply be a scapegoat.

Looks like my prediction was wrong, Sky News is reporting that Speaker Martin will resign over expenses (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Speaker-Michael-Martin-To-Resign-Say-Sky-Sources/Article/200905315284430?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284430_Speaker_Michael_Martin_To_Resign_Say_Sky_Sources) this afternoon.

Let's hope his early retirement, very much forced by statements from Clegg and Cameron, among others, is not the only concession Parliament will give. Though his position was becoming increasingly untenable, there's a fear he'll simply be a scapegoat.

Frankly this is just the, albeit big, straw that broke the camels back - there's been issues about the speaker for a while, so frankly I'm glad he's gone.

I imagine it's not the only change that's going to happen by any stretch of the imagination. Looks like David Cameron is also trying to use this to get an early election, although frankly I think we need a few months first to avoid a massive swing towards UKIP or the like. If we can have a new election before September I'll be quite happy, as where I am currently the Lib Dems may have a vague chance of actually winning.

Looks like David Cameron is also trying to use this to get an early election, although frankly I think we need a few months first to avoid a massive swing towards UKIP or the like. If we can have a new election before September I'll be quite happy, as where I am currently the Lib Dems may have a vague chance of actually winning.
If certain polls are to be believed (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/16/comres-piles-the-gloom-on-gord/), the Tories will even be making gains in Scotland; something we've not seen up here in around 20 years.

If certain polls are to be believed (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/16/comres-piles-the-gloom-on-gord/), the Tories will even be making gains in Scotland; something we've not seen up here in around 20 years.

Interesting blog... ta for that. Labour is just spiralling at the moment, it's one fuck up after another. But then again this is often the way when a part has been in power for too long. The next election is going to be a big shake up, that's for sure.

Interesting blog... ta for that.
Aye it's a handy resource.

Labour is just spiralling at the moment, it's one fuck up after another. But then again this is often the way when a part has been in power for too long. The next election is going to be a big shake up, that's for sure.
As big a shake-up as the beginning of a new parliamentary cycle can be...

The prospect of Tory rule for the next five years, at least, doesn't exactly fill me with glee.

The prospect of Tory rule for the next five years, at least, doesn't exactly fill me with glee.

I'm just hoping they won't be as pathetic as Labour have been.

I'm just hoping they won't be as pathetic as Labour have been.
My real worry is that Cameron brings in a party much more socially and fiscally conservative (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece) than the Tories are currently portrayed to be.

My real worry is that Cameron brings in a party much more socially and fiscally conservative (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece) than the Tories are currently portrayed to be.

Oh joy. And I'd just about come to terms with having a Tory government soon.