Guest alex Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What I meant was (quite obviously) what they earn in salary (around £60k per annum iirc) is not a massive amount. It depends on the time spent, which is why they don't like tables (which is funny because they generally love league tables) published of questions asked and debated voted on etc. No need to repeat yourself Fop. Clearly there was. You knew what I meant, surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 What I meant was (quite obviously) what they earn in salary (around £60k per annum iirc) is not a massive amount. It depends on the time spent, which is why they don't like tables (which is funny because they generally love league tables) published of questions asked and debated voted on etc. No need to repeat yourself Fop. Clearly there was. You knew what I meant, surely. , but I'm still not sure you know what Fop meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I did. All I meant was it's not a vast amount of money given the importance of the job etc. I appreciate some might spend a lot less time on the job than what is really acceptable. I also realise that they claim more in expenses in many cases than they earn from their MP's salary and from directorships. In essence what I was driving at was that the salary in itself isn't massive and that in turn was related to my previous argument that it should be a full-time job without any moonlighting. The relatively low salary increases the motive for people seek out other salaries and has also helped to keep the whole expenses thing so cloak and dagger for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I did. All I meant was it's not a vast amount of money given the importance of the job etc. I appreciate some might spend a lot less time on the job than what is really acceptable. I also realise that they claim more in expenses in many cases than they earn from their MP's salary and from directorships. In essence what I was driving at was that the salary in itself isn't massive and that in turn was related to my previous argument that it should be a full-time job without any moonlighting. The relatively low salary increases the motive for people seek out other salaries and has also helped to keep the whole expenses thing so cloak and dagger for so long. That's a similar argument to city bonuses though (and look where that has lead). Although I agree with you in a way, it would take quite some doing to nail MPs down to X working hours a week, and even if it could be done it would likely be very easy to cheat (in fact this has lead to issues with MEPs in the EP). Again the debates participated, things voted on, questions asked, and committees etc. sat on, public league table is probably the best way to regulate them - nothing they fear more than the public seeing in black and white how little they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bias 3 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 For alot of MPs it is a full time job and alot of them work 15-18 hour days. They do a hard job and it should be recognized more. It's a joke that these papers come out with this crap about "we should know how they spend their expenses etc" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I did. All I meant was it's not a vast amount of money given the importance of the job etc. I appreciate some might spend a lot less time on the job than what is really acceptable. I also realise that they claim more in expenses in many cases than they earn from their MP's salary and from directorships. In essence what I was driving at was that the salary in itself isn't massive and that in turn was related to my previous argument that it should be a full-time job without any moonlighting. The relatively low salary increases the motive for people seek out other salaries and has also helped to keep the whole expenses thing so cloak and dagger for so long. That's a similar argument to city bonuses though (and look where that has lead). Although I agree with you in a way, it would take quite some doing to nail MPs down to X working hours a week, and even if it could be done it would likely be very easy to cheat (in fact this has lead to issues with MEPs in the EP). Again the debates participated, things voted on, questions asked, and committees etc. sat on, public league table is probably the best way to regulate them - nothing they fear more than the public seeing in black and white how little they do. It may be a similar argument but it's a rather different situation since on one hand you have public servants, so to speak, and on the other you have people working in the private sector. You still haven't proffered a solution of your own iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 For alot of MPs it is a full time job and alot of them work 15-18 hour days. They do a hard job and it should be recognized more. It's a joke that these papers come out with this crap about "we should know how they spend their expenses etc" Why exactly shouldn't their expenses by public? Since the public pays for them. I totally agree with Fop when he says it should be available (were the current setup to persist) under the Freedom of Information Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26439 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I did. All I meant was it's not a vast amount of money given the importance of the job etc. I appreciate some might spend a lot less time on the job than what is really acceptable. I also realise that they claim more in expenses in many cases than they earn from their MP's salary and from directorships. In essence what I was driving at was that the salary in itself isn't massive and that in turn was related to my previous argument that it should be a full-time job without any moonlighting. The relatively low salary increases the motive for people seek out other salaries and has also helped to keep the whole expenses thing so cloak and dagger for so long. That's a similar argument to city bonuses though (and look where that has lead). Although I agree with you in a way, it would take quite some doing to nail MPs down to X working hours a week, and even if it could be done it would likely be very easy to cheat (in fact this has lead to issues with MEPs in the EP). Again the debates participated, things voted on, questions asked, and committees etc. sat on, public league table is probably the best way to regulate them - nothing they fear more than the public seeing in black and white how little they do. How about the time spent on constituency work and all the other tasks MPs have? It's near impossible to have a league table for all these things. Ultimately MPs will be accountable to their constituents at election time so this talk of league tables is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26439 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Why exactly shouldn't their expenses by public? Since the public pays for them. I totally agree with Fop when he says it should be available (were the current setup to persist) under the Freedom of Information Act. Aren't some details already available on their expenses though? I think the FoI issue is that people want them itemised. As long as we're getting some sort of information and can see if certain MPs are taking the piss then it's not a big deal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Why exactly shouldn't their expenses by public? Since the public pays for them. I totally agree with Fop when he says it should be available (were the current setup to persist) under the Freedom of Information Act. Aren't some details already available on their expenses though? I think the FoI issue is that people want them itemised. As long as we're getting some sort of information and can see if certain MPs are taking the piss then it's not a big deal to me. I think you're right. I was listening to Radio 5 and the issue was around the non-submittal of receipts for expenses of less than £20 or something like that. I'd argue they should have to submit those because 1) they have staff who could sort out the administrative side of that, i.e. they'd only need to keep the receipts and 2) not submitting them is open to abuse. I know it's not a lot of money but you can be 'creative' and if they knew everything they submitted could be scrutinised maybe they'd be more frugal with our money. No bad thing imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I did. All I meant was it's not a vast amount of money given the importance of the job etc. I appreciate some might spend a lot less time on the job than what is really acceptable. I also realise that they claim more in expenses in many cases than they earn from their MP's salary and from directorships. In essence what I was driving at was that the salary in itself isn't massive and that in turn was related to my previous argument that it should be a full-time job without any moonlighting. The relatively low salary increases the motive for people seek out other salaries and has also helped to keep the whole expenses thing so cloak and dagger for so long. That's a similar argument to city bonuses though (and look where that has lead). Although I agree with you in a way, it would take quite some doing to nail MPs down to X working hours a week, and even if it could be done it would likely be very easy to cheat (in fact this has lead to issues with MEPs in the EP). Again the debates participated, things voted on, questions asked, and committees etc. sat on, public league table is probably the best way to regulate them - nothing they fear more than the public seeing in black and white how little they do. How about the time spent on constituency work and all the other tasks MPs have? It's near impossible to have a league table for all these things. Ultimately MPs will be accountable to their constituents at election time so this talk of league tables is nonsense. Is the real-world answer and simple truth of the matter. FoI on expenses, or higher salaries and no expenses (and thus no need for FoI). Fucking Opta stats for MP's man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin sane 0 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Fuck you Fop. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7842402.stm And you think Fop would be upset by this why? This is what Fop wanted. It looks like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have decided this is a good political issue at the moment. So it's (for now anyway, Labour will try it again eventually) This is good news,but they'll be back with it soon enough. You may have seen this before but it shows the type of widespred abuse they want to hide from us(slightly of topic as its about MEP's Allowance abuse but shows why we need transparency) It's subtitled but well worth the 6min or so it takes to watch. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMtc_QJ4-E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Fuck you Fop. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7842402.stm And you think Fop would be upset by this why? This is what Fop wanted. It looks like the Conservatives and Lib Dems have decided this is a good political issue at the moment. So it's (for now anyway, Labour will try it again eventually) This is good news,but they'll be back with it soon enough. You may have seen this before but it shows the type of widespred abuse they want to hide from us(slightly of topic as its about MEP's Allowance abuse but shows why we need transparency) It's subtitled but well worth the 6min or so it takes to watch. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMtc_QJ4-E Aye, part of the problem with massively increasing the basic wage, is that an expenses system would still be needed (not as far reaching as now, but there'd still have to be one), and it would still be open to massive abuse if not covered by the FoI act. The European "Parliament" is appalling as far as effective embezzlement goes (never mind the European Commission), it really needs much stronger overview (and probably a Stalinist purge). The UK isn't too bad so long as everything is out there for the public to see, it's funny how MP's love performance related pay in most aspects but when applied to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 As Fop suspected it seems Labour will try to resurrect this bill sometime later on in the year - several high profile Labour expenses "fiddles" (al la Martin) being the many issues driving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 And the Lords wants making directly electable ASAP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin sane 0 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And the Lords wants making directly electable ASAP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm "Lady Royall went on to say that if it emerged the peers had broken the rules, they would be "named and shamed" but they could not be thrown out of the House of Lords." Why not? IMO another load of unelected,untouchable parasites who have no real idea what it is like to live in this country.Wonder when any of them last walked the streets or visited a council estate unprotected.FFS i'd be surprised if any of them had ever gone hungry for a day let alone suffered poverty.Most of these fuckers ,if not all of them,have no idea what its like to ;ive in the real world because they are too far removed from it.Most of them will have lived a lifetime of privilege. I'm not against people having a privileged lifestyle, thou i think it obscene that one man can be worth billions while another can starve, but feel we need people to represent us who are representative of us (us being the majority). No more philanthropists anymore.(or not many) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 And the Lords wants making directly electable ASAP. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849594.stm "Lady Royall went on to say that if it emerged the peers had broken the rules, they would be "named and shamed" but they could not be thrown out of the House of Lords." Why not? IMO another load of unelected,untouchable parasites who have no real idea what it is like to live in this country.Wonder when any of them last walked the streets or visited a council estate unprotected.FFS i'd be surprised if any of them had ever gone hungry for a day let alone suffered poverty.Most of these fuckers ,if not all of them,have no idea what its like to ;ive in the real world because they are too far removed from it.Most of them will have lived a lifetime of privilege. I'm not against people having a privileged lifestyle, thou i think it obscene that one man can be worth billions while another can starve, but feel we need people to represent us who are representative of us (us being the majority). No more philanthropists anymore.(or not many) It's just the way the system is now, personally I think it's actually probably worse than the old hereditary system, as it actively encourages this sort of thing (and other corruptions). Directly elected is the only way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The old hereditary system just worked, basically and I think the work it did (and the Lords still does) was / is somewhat underrated. Obviously it was hideously unfair but I don't think the way in which it was replaced was thought out very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 The old hereditary system just worked, basically and I think the work it did (and the Lords still does) was / is somewhat underrated. Obviously it was hideously unfair but I don't think the way in which it was replaced was thought out very well. Aye the old hereditary system did a job, but it was flawed in many ways, so it's amazing that they've probably managed to find an even worse way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The old hereditary system just worked, basically and I think the work it did (and the Lords still does) was / is somewhat underrated. Obviously it was hideously unfair but I don't think the way in which it was replaced was thought out very well. Aye the old hereditary system did a job, but it was flawed in many ways, so it's amazing that they've probably managed to find an even worse way to do it. It's what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 An elected upper house would probably end up a farce iyam. The apathy with voting would result in extremely poor voting figures and it could well end up with electors using it as their 'protest' vote; Lord knows what it would end up if that were to happen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin sane 0 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 An elected upper house would probably end up a farce iyam. The apathy with voting would result in extremely poor voting figures and it could well end up with electors using it as their 'protest' vote; Lord knows what it would end up if that were to happen!! We would more then likely end up with monkeys.Like when Hartlepool elected a monkey(or at least a monkey mascot)as Mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 An elected upper house would probably end up a farce iyam. The apathy with voting would result in extremely poor voting figures and it could well end up with electors using it as their 'protest' vote; Lord knows what it would end up if that were to happen!! Actually that's probably a pretty good balance, which is pretty much the Lords job. Hereditary, the current system or no Lords are all much worse options than a fully elected one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now