Squandered.......

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Jaysay, they only sprang to mind because they are the latest in a list of too many.
I wish more of these people had to live on a basic state pension for......let's say a month...just so that they could get a taste of the real world.
They don't know what hard work is.

The problem with getting an MP to live on a pensioner’s income for a month is that there is an ending window to look forward to and they could probably rough it in the full knowledge that there is an end.

We pensioners don’t have that option. Our only ending is a very unlikely lottery win or a visit from the grim reaper.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, you are right...they do have a 'get out'...but perhaps it would make them a bit more sympathetic to the cause.......and i know sympathy doesn't pay the gas and electric bills....but they would know what it felt like to have to scrimp a bit......and it would make me feel better.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Yes, you are right...they do have a 'get out'...but perhaps it would make them a bit more sympathetic to the cause.......and i know sympathy doesn't pay the gas and electric bills....but they would know what it felt like to have to scrimp a bit......and it would make me feel better.

To really understand the pensioner’s and low paid person’s plight you have to live it period. A snap shot, even a month long, soon gets forgotten. But it would be better than nothing I guess.

It’s a bit like suffering a severe and painfully injury or illness. Once better the actual pain is forgotten, although you do remember that there was pain.

Now which rich MP would like to change places with me?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Jaysay, they only sprang to mind because they are the latest in a list of too many.
I wish more of these people had to live on a basic state pension for......let's say a month...just so that they could get a taste of the real world.
They don't know what hard work is.

No the Ball's are the latest ones just last week, but the media don't give them the same coverage

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh, I must've missed that one.
I'd swop places with that one who called us all 'miserable'....I could be really miserable on his salary and allowances.

[jambutty]

There is one other point that seems to have escaped the notice of, or at least a comment on MP’s, by the contributors to this thread.

Many MP’s have secondary jobs in the form of consultancies and/or directorships.

My question is simple. Do we want part time MP’s? Because that is what some people have got.

Surely representing thousands of constituents has to be a full time job. And if it isn’t then an MP could handle a larger constituency and a larger constituency would mean fewer constituencies and thus fewer MP’s to make it a full time job.

Apart from a truly independent MP’s salaries and perks review body, no MP should have a secondary job (paid or unpaid). No man or woman can have allegiance to two masters and we, the public, have to be the only master that an MP has.

[katex]

Originally Posted by jambutty

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

Many MP’s have secondary jobs in the form of consultancies and/or directorships.

My question is simple. Do we want part time MP’s? Because that is what some people have got.

Surely representing thousands of constituents has to be a full time job. And if it isn’t then an MP could handle a larger constituency and a larger constituency would mean fewer constituencies and thus fewer MP’s to make it a full time job.

Apart from a truly independent MP’s salaries and perks review body, no MP should have a secondary job (paid or unpaid). No man or woman can have allegiance to two masters and we, the public, have to be the only master that an MP has.

Of course, we don't wish for part time MP's Jambutty, however, only candidates that have risen in the world of business, commerce and other professions as such are capable of running the country. Naturally, they do not always wish to give up their business interests, but when they do, their own interests do suffer. I do not resent one penny MP's earn .. have seen it first hand, and is expensive to become one .. yes, have to have accommodation in London (can you imagine the cost of that!!).

What annoys me more is the pedestal we put footballers, celebrities on, and the stupid vast sums of money they are paid.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Busman747

I was reading an excerpt from a book called “Squandered” by David Craig who is presently standing as a candidate in the Haltemprice & Howdwen by-election and found that not only did I agree with everything that he said, but that a sense of outrage surfaced that has been quietly simmering under the surface for some time.

We have been drip fed stories of our MP’s creaming off huge amounts of money to line their own pockets by using their expenses to pay and decorate their “second home” ( buying only the best of course,) The latest exposé is that perhaps hundreds of MP’s are registering their second home which being in London has in most cases, a greater value than their family home with Inland Revenue as their 1st. Home. This enables them to sell the London abode at a later date without having to pay any capital gains tax saving them many thousands of pounds.

Paying their family members for secretarial duties, gardeners, baby sitters, eating out at the best restaurants, even their own private bar and restaurant at the House of Commons is reputed to be cheaper than any place that we have access to. On top of that, they have the comfort of knowing that their pension will be greater than most people in normal life earn. According to Mr. Craig, if WE chose to receive a similar pension to an MP, we would have to make a yearly investment of £50,000 (close on £1000-00 per WEEK!)

How many days holiday do you have each year? Personally, I am entitled to the minimum which this year is 24 days INCLUDING BANK HOLIDAYS!! (That’s 4 additional days from 2007) In comparison, MP’s are entitled to 90 paid days per annum and tried to vote themselves a further 12 days last year.

David Craig questions the number of MP’s that are presently elected to govern us, at present, 646 plus 129 members of the Scottish Parliament, 60 Welsh Assembly members, 108 members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland and 78 members of the European Parliament. Thats 1,021 politicians to represent the interests of fewer than 70 million people, that’s one for every 68,000 citizens. On top of that, there are of course hundreds of members in the House of Lords claiming expenses just for the privilege of dossing down for a couple of days each week!

To put it in a nut shell, the cost to us for our MP’s is £366,000,000 per year, that’s £4,000.00 per MP per DAY that he or she works!! And where they used to make the laws that govern our country, most are now made in the E.U. (84%) NOT in our parliament!

David Craig is standing, not to jump on the gravy train, but as a platform to highlight the greed and laziness of the MP’s that presently represent us. (He promises to donate 50% of his income to charities and he will still be well paid for his job) His objective is to reduce the number of MP’s to half of the present number – and why not?

How does it compare with the U.S.A? There are just 435 Members of Congress, that’s one for every 680,000 citizens.

At the moment everyone in the country is feeling the pinch, companies are looking at ways to trim their costs, wage earners are trying to keep their heads above water as Mortgage payments rise, fuel costs go through the roof, supermarket prices soar, wages remain stagnant........... unless you’re an MP! In the last 5 years, their salary + expenses has gone up by 64%

Am I alone (apart from David Craig) in thinking that politicians, labour or conservative no longer have the interests of their constituents at heart and that the agenda of budding politicians is to rape the country and get what they can? I am starting a poll with this and would genuinely like the opinions of ALL on the accyweb and especially those with political aspirations.

I hope that the people of Haltemprice and Howdwen vote him in, it would be interesting to see what waves he could start. If he was a candidate for this area, I would certainly vote to give him his platform! I have no idea whether he is Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems or Independant..........I don't care! He is the first person that I have empathy with with the exception of BNT. (Who are right in much that they say...but have an underlying agenda)

Thank you for reading though this.

Over 1000 politicians for 70 million people does seem rather out of line ... for those who might be interested, Canada, with a population of 33 million, has 305 members of the Federal Parliament ... this seems pretty reasonable, although there are vast differences in the constituency sizes ... in area, if not in population. Peter Milliken, who represents Kingston and the Islands for the Liberal Party has a much easier time of it than Dennis Bevington, who represents the constituency of the Western Arctic for the New Democratic Party ... imagine representing an area way larger than England! On the other hand, each of the ten provinces has a Provincial Parliament which takes care of matters which fall under Provincial jurisdiction ... Health, education, highway construction and maintainance, supply of power, welfare etc. The Province of Ontario for example, has an annual budget of close to $100 billion .... I suppose if you count in the politicians who look after your counties and the cities, you have a lot more than a 1000 ... but maybe it's the quality of the work they do that should count, not the number of people doing the work.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by katex

Of course, we don't wish for part time MP's Jambutty, however, only candidates that have risen in the world of business, commerce and other professions as such are capable of running the country. Naturally, they do not always wish to give up their business interests, but when they do, their own interests do suffer. I do not resent one penny MP's earn .. have seen it first hand, and is expensive to become one .. yes, have to have accommodation in London (can you imagine the cost of that!!).

What annoys me more is the pedestal we put footballers, celebrities on, and the stupid vast sums of money they are paid.

You agree with me that we don’t wish for a part time MP then turn right around and boldly state that you don’t resent one penny that MP’s earn, implying that were it comes from is OK by you.

A bit of a contradiction isn’t it?

I agree that MP’s should be drawn from business and commerce with some of life’s experience behind them. But to continue in their business and running the country at the same time will undoubtedly create a conflict of interest sooner or later.

If a candidate belongs to a political party, isn’t the expense of standing for election covered by party funds? It is only an independent candidate that has to fund his own election expenses and even then s/he will undoubtedly be sponsored by donations.

The MP’s cost of accommodation in London is paid for by the taxpayer, in the form of those allowances.

Although I agree with you in your last sentence statement, it is an irrelevance to this thread.

[katex]

No, Jambutty you have misinterpreted my post. I do agree that MP'ing should be a full time job, but extremely difficult to rid yourself of the business/professional interests you may have developed, and would pay them enough money to do this. Difficult to be pulled in all directions most of the time.

In other words, I am one of the minority that would pay them enough to concentrate more on running the country and to leave their other interests in safe hands.

[Eric]

An additional comment on the thread opener: the 435 members of Congress in the US is a misleading figure. Like the Canadian figures, you have to take into account the State Governments, such as the one Arnie heads in California ... and all the local govts. and offices .... they even elect their Sheriffs and dog catchers ... if you add all these elected people to the 435, you come up with a hell of a big number. And you have to remember that in the United States, the Executive branch of the govt. is separate from the Legislative branch. And it is massive ... and largely unelected, altho' major appointments must meet congressional approval. I may not be completely correct in this, but I think I'm close; maybe one of our American friends will help us out. Probably won't be Barb, 'cause she seems to thing that the greatest threat facing America is the American government. ... oh, and liberals.

[Wynonie Harris]

MPs are voting on what sort of pay rise they should have today. Wouldn't you like to be able to vote on your own pay rise?

Their current salary is £61,820 pa. On top of that, they're entitled to an allowance of £22,110 (which the vast majority of them claim). This is tax-free and is equivalent to earnings of £36,850, adding up to a package which is equivalent to £98,670. Plus their generous pensions, free transport and lots, lots more...but obviously, it's not enough for them!

[jambutty]

One news item today is that the MOD has signed contracts for two new aircraft carriers at a cost of £4 billion. They will be built in four shipyards around the UK and will provide work for some 10,000 people.

One will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and the other HMS Prince of Wales.

This raises two issues.

The UK is NOT A WORLD POWER so we don’t need two new carriers even though we are an island nation. It could even be argued that we don’t need even one new carrier. Our current navy is large enough to defend these shores. Our current troops need proper equipment to enable them to carry out Blair’s Folly with a reasonable degree of safety and that £4 billion would be better spent on them.

The other issue is why those names? Traditionally British aircraft carriers have been named Invincible, Indomitable, Indefatigable, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Victorious, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes, Centaur, Audacious, Royal Oak to name just a few. Over 50 years ago there were two carriers being built due to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh but both were cancelled in 1966. They should have cancelled the monarchy at the same time.

The choice of those particular names is nothing more than a means of perpetuating the myth of the monarchy. In fact if you look around you will see that over the years we have been quietly brain washed into accepting the monarchy. Golf courses called Royal something. Hospitals named Royal Infirmary, Blackburn Royal, Queens Park Hospital. Royal Mail. The word royal, king, queen or prince crops up all over the place in place names. In fact our whole culture is littered with reminders of the monarchy.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jambutty

One news item today is that the MOD has signed contracts for two new aircraft carriers at a cost of £4 billion. They will be built in four shipyards around the UK and will provide work for some 10,000 people.

One will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and the other HMS Prince of Wales.

This raises two issues.

The UK is NOT A WORLD POWER so we don’t need two new carriers even though we are an island nation. It could even be argued that we don’t need even one new carrier. Our current navy is large enough to defend these shores. Our current troops need proper equipment to enable them to carry out Blair’s Folly with a reasonable degree of safety and that £4 billion would be better spent on them.

The other issue is why those names? Traditionally British aircraft carriers have been named Invincible, Indomitable, Indefatigable, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Victorious, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes, Centaur, Audacious, Royal Oak to name just a few. Over 50 years ago there were two carriers being built due to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh but both were cancelled in 1966. They should have cancelled the monarchy at the same time.

The choice of those particular names is nothing more than a means of perpetuating the myth of the monarchy. In fact if you look around you will see that over the years we have been quietly brain washed into accepting the monarchy. Golf courses called Royal something. Hospitals named Royal Infirmary, Blackburn Royal, Queens Park Hospital. Royal Mail. The word royal, king, queen or prince crops up all over the place in place names. In fact our whole culture is littered with reminders of the monarchy.

Would agree that the money could be better spend ... altho' the 10 000 who will be working on them would disagree ... the names are OK ... this would not be the first HMS Prince of Wales, the last one was sunk by the Japs on Dec 10, 1941. I like the names better than, say, USS Ronald Reagan, or the USS George H. Bush.

And you are not the only ones whose culture is "littered with reminders of the monarchy". In Kingston you can curl at the Royal Kingston Curling Club, drink at the Royal Tap Room, or the Prince George ... our main street is Princess Street, we have Queen Street, a King Street, a high school called Queen Elizabeth Collegiate and Vocational Institute, the local University is Queen's University, and the main residence dorm is Victoria Hall. Canadian warships are all HMCS, (we even have an HMCS Kingston), the local reserve regiment is The Princess of Wales Own .... we have the RCAF .... the list goes on and on .... Oh, and our city is KINGston.

[andrewb]

Seems the vote to reform expenses was lost. One Labour MP told David Cameron to 'f*** off' because Cameron and his front bench backed reform.