Conservative MP - Police Rant.
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
All true but I don't recall any senior Labour figure doing anything simlar and belittling the lower orders? (and I despise socialism!). And before you say Eric Joyce, he's just another drunken Scotsman who can't hold his drink.
Prescott belting a member of the public, then getting the guy prosecuted for assault?The vile abomination crashing her car into a parked car then, when someone tried to get her to stop and leave details, saying "I'm Harriet Harman" and driving off (in fairness, she did get 6 points and a fine but no sanction from the Labour leadership)?
Gordon Brown throwing things at Downing Street staff (anecdotal but never denied)?
Gorbals Mick and his secretary?
Gordon Brown and "She's just a bigot, I shouldn't have to meet people like that"
Do I need to go on?
ClaphamGT3 said:
Prescott belting a member of the public, then getting the guy prosecuted for assault?
The vile abomination crashing her car into a parked car then, when someone tried to get her to stop and leave details, saying "I'm Harriet Harman" and driving off (in fairness, she did get 6 points and a fine but no sanction from the Labour leadership)?
Gordon Brown throwing things at Downing Street staff (anecdotal but never denied)?
Gorbals Mick and his secretary?
Gordon Brown and "She's just a bigot, I shouldn't have to meet people like that"
Do I need to go on?
I hate Prescott beyond words and support fox hunting; he was quite right to belt that prat who threw an egg in his face.The vile abomination crashing her car into a parked car then, when someone tried to get her to stop and leave details, saying "I'm Harriet Harman" and driving off (in fairness, she did get 6 points and a fine but no sanction from the Labour leadership)?
Gordon Brown throwing things at Downing Street staff (anecdotal but never denied)?
Gorbals Mick and his secretary?
Gordon Brown and "She's just a bigot, I shouldn't have to meet people like that"
Do I need to go on?
Apart from the foul w
e Harperson, who should have gone to prison as an example, none of this is nearly so bad as Mr Mitchell IMO. Agreed they're all horrible s in their own ways though! 
whoami said:
FiF said:
That's not a report by MP's though.Repeat, all in it together, not.
FiF said:
Correct, but you have conveniently ignored all that the report said about their pension scheme.
Repeat, all in it together, not.
I think that a succession of fudges on both sides has got us into the current farcical muddle on MP pay. In order to be seen to keep salaries down, the whole expenses situation arose and now pensions are - rightly - under scrutiny.Repeat, all in it together, not.
We need to grow up I think and say that we elect MPs to be key people and do a serious job and, WHILST they serve, they are well paid but not allowed to do any other work. Once out of parliament all pay and benefits stop and they can do what they like. They cover their own expenses and are responsible for their own pensions.
Would suggest pay levels of;
Back bencher £250k
PPs £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet minister/leader of opposition £750k
Foreign Sec Home Sec, Chancellor £850k
PM £1m
If you earn outside that or try to claim any expenses, its fraud and you go to prison.
FiF said:
whoami said:
FiF said:
That's not a report by MP's though.Repeat, all in it together, not.
I haven't ignored, conveniently or otherwise, anything.
I merely pointed out that the report was not authorised by the MP's themselves.
Also worth noting is this comment from the article.
"Any of the options being floated would leave MPs considerably worse off."
ClaphamGT3 said:
FiF said:
Correct, but you have conveniently ignored all that the report said about their pension scheme.
Repeat, all in it together, not.
I think that a succession of fudges on both sides has got us into the current farcical muddle on MP pay. In order to be seen to keep salaries down, the whole expenses situation arose and now pensions are - rightly - under scrutiny.Repeat, all in it together, not.
We need to grow up I think and say that we elect MPs to be key people and do a serious job and, WHILST they serve, they are well paid but not allowed to do any other work. Once out of parliament all pay and benefits stop and they can do what they like. They cover their own expenses and are responsible for their own pensions.
Would suggest pay levels of;
Back bencher £250k
PPs £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet minister/leader of opposition £750k
Foreign Sec Home Sec, Chancellor £850k
PM £1m
If you earn outside that or try to claim any expenses, its fraud and you go to prison.
tbh I'm not sure about the "once out of parliament they can do what they like." IIRC when they leave parliament, especially in the situation of a lost election seat, then they get VERY generous allowances, which used to be for the life of the next parliament. I think that has been reduced to a settlement grant of 100% of salary dependant upon length in service.
Anyway the point is I feel that something needs to be done to avoid someone stitching up a deal while in office, upon losing the election immediately moving into a job because of that deal. There are non competitive clauses all the time in private sector terms and conditions of employment. This should be no different.
Sort of related, let's not forget that the first time he had to resign and go onto the back benches, David Blunkett claimed the special allowance for ex Govt ministers, which is to compensate them for being barred from taking paid employment within 12 months of being a Minister. Whilst he was a back bencher, he kept his grace and favour house, his car and chauffeur. When he became a Govt Minister a second time, and had to resign a second time, he claimed the same allowance, again a second time, however it was subsequently also proved that he had additionally taken paid employment within the 12 months.
I'm sorry but MPs and politicians have only themselves to blame for the public's jaundiced view.
whoami said:
I haven't ignored, conveniently or otherwise, anything.
I merely pointed out that the report was not authorised by the MP's themselves.
Also worth noting is this comment from the article.
"Any of the options being floated would leave MPs considerably worse off."
FiF said:
whoami said:
I haven't ignored, conveniently or otherwise, anything.
I merely pointed out that the report was not authorised by the MP's themselves.
Also worth noting is this comment from the article.
"Any of the options being floated would leave MPs considerably worse off."
whoami said:
Maybe, but what exactly do you think I missed regarding their pension provision, apart from noting that it would be worse than it is now?
Frankly you came across as dismissing the relevance of the whole report as it wasn't by MPs. If that was a misunderstanding of what you intended to say then I'm sorry, you might wish to be more clear in future.XCP said:
Perhaps they shouldn't be paid a salary at all - like the Lords.
You either pay politicians properly to do the job so that you don't get good people not going into politics because of the pay cut or you don't pay them and accept that politicians will always be either independently wealthy or externally sponsored. The electorate can't have it both ways.Maybe you could pay MPs an index-linked equivilent of what they earned in their last non political job. That way, an ex Barrister or banker could still earn their £2m per year whilst an ex teacher would earn their £50k. Everyone paid a living wage but no one disincentivised by money
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff