So out of touch they still don't get it.... Edition 3276
Discussion
A letter purported to be representative of the views of MPs on the Kelly review into their expenses was read out on R4 this morning.
Amongst all the angst and vitriol about how we are so misunderstood was this little charmer.
As part of justifying why MPs who live close to Parliament need to have second homes this MP wrote about the agony of a commute where what is in normal circumstances is a one hour drive can on occasions become a two or three hour journey.
Join the real world you clowns!
Amongst all the angst and vitriol about how we are so misunderstood was this little charmer.
As part of justifying why MPs who live close to Parliament need to have second homes this MP wrote about the agony of a commute where what is in normal circumstances is a one hour drive can on occasions become a two or three hour journey.
Join the real world you clowns!
jshell said:
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
They'd never VOTE for it..Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
F i F said:
...wrote about the agony of a commute where what is in normal circumstances is a one hour drive can on occasions become a two or three hour journey.
Is a London commute really that variable? Do you really need to allow three hours for a nominally one hour journey just incase you get a two hour delay?If so, and if their roles are important enough, then this might be good reason but I suspect that this isn't the case on either point.
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Inded he did. A block of flats near Parliament where they can retire. Ministers and others have it.Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Halb said:
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Inded he did. A block of flats near Parliament where they can retire. Ministers and others have it.Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
cymtriks said:
F i F said:
...wrote about the agony of a commute where what is in normal circumstances is a one hour drive can on occasions become a two or three hour journey.
Is a London commute really that variable? Do you really need to allow three hours for a nominally one hour journey just incase you get a two hour delay?If so, and if their roles are important enough, then this might be good reason but I suspect that this isn't the case on either point.
I know I have many times, and that's my point.
It was like when Eric Pickles on Question Time was trying to justify second homes for London MPs as they had to turn up at Parliament on time. To which David Dimbleby said " you mean just like somebody who has a job?" The audience wet themselves laughing at Pickles being called out on that.
Deva Link said:
Halb said:
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Inded he did. A block of flats near Parliament where they can retire. Ministers and others have it.Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
But a building of typical London flats is more what I was thinking of. County Hall Marriot could be purchased?
F i F said:
cymtriks said:
F i F said:
...wrote about the agony of a commute where what is in normal circumstances is a one hour drive can on occasions become a two or three hour journey.
Is a London commute really that variable? Do you really need to allow three hours for a nominally one hour journey just incase you get a two hour delay?If so, and if their roles are important enough, then this might be good reason but I suspect that this isn't the case on either point.
I know I have many times, and that's my point.
It was like when Eric Pickles on Question Time was trying to justify second homes for London MPs as they had to turn up at Parliament on time. To which David Dimbleby said " you mean just like somebody who has a job?" The audience wet themselves laughing at Pickles being called out on that.
t boxes that we call trains they might do something about the woeful state of transport in the South East.Halb said:
Deva Link said:
Halb said:
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Inded he did. A block of flats near Parliament where they can retire. Ministers and others have it.Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
But a building of typical London flats is more what I was thinking of. County Hall Marriot could be purchased?
As you can tell I'm not averse to MP's having a London base provided if they live a given distance from the city, and have to split their time between the Commons and their constituency.
Must admit I was surprised to hear that American members of congress are provided accomodation, seems too "socialised" to me
I do not comprehend the gargantuan attention given to MPs’ expenses. FFS, with respect to the absolute budgetary public spend and proportion of public expenditure, they are relatively inconsequential. Their salaries are not exceptionally generous. Sure, a great deal of the expenses are morally indefensible, but then so are rewards for failure in segments of the private sector. It goes with the territory; the best bet is to simply get in on the act while you can! It’s capitalism…..make what you can while you can.
baz1985 said:
I do not comprehend the gargantuan attention given to MPs’ expenses. FFS, with respect to the absolute budgetary public spend and proportion of public expenditure, they are relatively inconsequential. Their salaries are not exceptionally generous. Sure, a great deal of the expenses are morally indefensible, but then so are rewards for failure in segments of the private sector. It goes with the territory; the best bet is to simply get in on the act while you can! It’s capitalism…..make what you can while you can.
I don't think it's the amount that's the problem,it's the principle that our elected representatives see fit to line their pockets with public money...Just to light the blue touch paper for a moment, I do have some degree of sympathy for MPs because they are in a hole that is not totally of their own making.
The problems really started when the government refused to implement pay increases for MPs that had been recommended by an independent body. HMG wouldn't grasp that particular nettle, and instead MPs were encouraged to inflate their expenses claims to get the pay increase they were really due.
There are of course two problems with doing this. Whilst it masks a pay increase in the short term, it then leaves open the possibility that the media will do an "expose" at some time in the future, which is of course exactly wat happened. Secondly, when the nature of what has actually been claimed for comes to light, the whole thing turns into a shyte/ fan interface.
Be honest with yourself for a moment. If your boss came to you and said "You deserve a £5k increase but I can't increase your salarly, but I'll turn a blind eye to your expenses claim," what would you do?
The problems really started when the government refused to implement pay increases for MPs that had been recommended by an independent body. HMG wouldn't grasp that particular nettle, and instead MPs were encouraged to inflate their expenses claims to get the pay increase they were really due.
There are of course two problems with doing this. Whilst it masks a pay increase in the short term, it then leaves open the possibility that the media will do an "expose" at some time in the future, which is of course exactly wat happened. Secondly, when the nature of what has actually been claimed for comes to light, the whole thing turns into a shyte/ fan interface.
Be honest with yourself for a moment. If your boss came to you and said "You deserve a £5k increase but I can't increase your salarly, but I'll turn a blind eye to your expenses claim," what would you do?
I think there are a number of issues with the Kelly report that are a bit questionable.
For example the issue of employing family members. Where a family member does a good job, is paid at the rate of an equivalent civil service pay grade and has proper T&Cs of employment then I don't see a problem, indeed it's a good solution. The issue is where some MPs have blatantly taken the pee. Just like the second homes thing.
Also as I said repeatedly on the earlier threads, for me it's not about the money. It's that MPs have not been doing their job, they have not held this Govt to account, allowed it to run riot with excessive legislation, countless SIs gone unchallenged, whilst also legislating for their own benefit. eg smoking laws specifically exclude MPs, along with prisoners, lunatics and the Royal Family. Why are MPs so special. They have screwed our pensions but made sure theirs is OK, and so on.
This expenses thing is the first thing we can really dig in and hold them to account, the election is the next one, and by God I hope we remember when it comes to the vote.
For example the issue of employing family members. Where a family member does a good job, is paid at the rate of an equivalent civil service pay grade and has proper T&Cs of employment then I don't see a problem, indeed it's a good solution. The issue is where some MPs have blatantly taken the pee. Just like the second homes thing.
Also as I said repeatedly on the earlier threads, for me it's not about the money. It's that MPs have not been doing their job, they have not held this Govt to account, allowed it to run riot with excessive legislation, countless SIs gone unchallenged, whilst also legislating for their own benefit. eg smoking laws specifically exclude MPs, along with prisoners, lunatics and the Royal Family. Why are MPs so special. They have screwed our pensions but made sure theirs is OK, and so on.
This expenses thing is the first thing we can really dig in and hold them to account, the election is the next one, and by God I hope we remember when it comes to the vote.
Deva Link said:
Halb said:
Marf said:
Sir Ian Blair was talking alot of sense on this issue last night on QT.
Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
Inded he did. A block of flats near Parliament where they can retire. Ministers and others have it.Why we can just have a system like in the US where each MP has a flat in London provided to them as part of the job that gets passed on to the next MP is beyond me.
A lot of MPs particularly those with school age children or no existing house in their constituency choose to have their main base in London where they spend most of their time and have a crash pad in their constituency.
Just forcing them to rent (and not off a family member) will sort out a lot of the issues and be far easier to implement.
baz1985 said:
I do not comprehend the gargantuan attention given to MPs’ expenses.
Really? you can't see how wrong it is for people who make laws that would see you or I thrown inside or at least sacked break them with impunity? You can't see how wrong their lack of comprehension for the publics disgust at their crimes is? You can't see how wrong, irrespective of the scale of their crimes, it is for our leaders, who are supposed to be a moral compass for society, to be caught cheating and stealing?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff