It is the £64,766 basic salary for an MP which is at the heart of the problem imho. A good sum certainly but is it enough to run two homes when there is a genuine need to do so ? I very much doubt it. Without question there has been an awful lot of MP`s making a nice profit out of the existing system without actually breaking any rules. Having said that there is little doubt that in using the current inadequate system to the full there has been a breathtaking disregard for the public purse and total lack of any morals. Abusers should be named and shamed and hopefully the democratic process will provide the justice. Sufficient allowances to enable them to do the job but tighter control of the system is required. I also do not think that it is too much to expect that those who govern us provide moral leadership and be trusted not to abuse an allowance scheme to line their pockets.
Is there a genuine need to do so? I think we all agree geographically some MP's need a second home but a huge number operate in the south east and still come within boundaries to claim. Some expenses yes should be incurred, but many can commute like the rest of us.
Why not put them all in student hall type accomodation? All dorms should be mixed re ethnicity and religion, and say a curfew at 23:30. Anyone setting off the fire alarm should be banned, whilst cleaning the fridge should be a shared duty.
I think they should be paid more because we want the best people doing it and looking to it as a career, GPs get more... if an MP also does constituency work they could be clocking an awful lot of hours.
The system needs to be transparant and detailed down to every penny because it is a public office, and meet the requirements of the job, plus having enough checks to make it hard to abuse. I rather liked the halls of residence idea.
The community block / Halls of residence idea is in reality absurd. These are we expect hard working concientious people who are entitled to somewhere to retreat and relax when not working.
why is it absurd these hard working conciencious people are claiming for horse shit and moats to be cleared swimming pools to be cleaned.
I am not saying they need a bed and a kettle you can make things look nice and neat for them so it is like living in a swanky flat but please explain why someone should have the right to claim for a 2nd home that they only live in for a period of time unless we only pay for it in the weeks/months that they actually live in it.
What "rules" have the bankers broken as a matter of interest?[/quote]
Sorry not broken rules as the rule of banking is to fleace. But broken laws (as the forthcoming civil claims will show) for taking risks and maximising short term profits (with known losses to come) solely for their own gain at the detriment of their bank, their customers and their country.
and I can never understand why people complain about paying tax (when they get massive benefits for it) and dont complain about paying over the odds (eg for banking) to help create an excessive profit for an instituion where you get nothing in return!
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]not at all when i work away from home which is quite often i get a hotel and i pay for it and i claim it back or the company books it for me..
What is wrong with that system if they are in London for 70-80% of their working lives then how do they know what their constituants want.
Take the guy from Luton as a prime example
He didnt claim for a 2nd house in London as there was no need if he needed to stay over he booked a hotel if he didnt he got transport home.
The other mp who lived in the same road claimed for a 2nd home in london and repairs to her seaside house and that benefitted who?
there should be a way that these so called servants of the public do not manipulate our taxes to their gain
You are quite right that the system has to work but you cannot expect the MP`s to suffer in terms of their lifestyle in order to carry out their elected role any more than we should expect those same people to try to abuse a system of allowances.
the point is if you take such a role on you should be doing it for the role not just the trappings that such a role offers.
No one forced them to run for MP they took the political role to serve the people.
i still think that there should be an accomodation for them to move into when needed it doesnt have to be a dingy pad but there could be enough to cover them all when required
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Thats the role they took in life SHG
the point is if you take such a role on you should be doing it for the role not just the trappings that such a role offers.
No one forced them to run for MP they took the political role to serve the people.
i still think that there should be an accomodation for them to move into when needed it doesnt have to be a dingy pad but there could be enough to cover them all
when required
I do take your point but that is the same argument used when discussing nurses low pay. "They knew the pay and conditions when they took the job" Its not valid for nurses or imho for MP`s
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]As razil says a 650 grace and favour flats or less as not all will need one.
Yes they need a place to work that is secure (govt papers and all that) but why a 2nd home.
Decent flat is fine and can be given to the next MP when they retire/get slung out.
What was there was a OK system to pay reasonable expenses but SOME MPs abused it so now they will all suffer. Tis always the way.
Again I do take the point but just because some MP`s have abused their trust I do not see why other honest hard working MP`s should suffer. If we have to put in place a system so restrictive just because MP`s cannot be trusted then I think we might just as well turn it all in.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Thats the role they took in life SHG
the point is if you take such a role on you should be doing it for the role not just the trappings that such a role offers.
No one forced them to run for MP they took the political role to serve the people.
i still think that there should be an accomodation for them to move into when needed it doesnt have to be a dingy pad but there could be enough to cover them all
when required
I do take your point but that is the same argument used when discussing nurses low pay. "They knew the pay and conditions when they took the job" Its not valid for nurses or imho for MP`s
you cant compare nurses and MPs mate one does it for the satisfaction of the role the others seem to do it for personal gain and not much else
I understand the point about low wages for the nurses but perhaps if these greedy bstds hadnt claimied for the heli pad to be kept clear and the posh tarpulin over the front door they could get a better rise it is all wrong
as henners and Razil have suggested it could be done differently and easily
the argument for paying MPs at all was that it allowed people other than the very rich to be MPs
The argument for paying MPs a decent wages with reasonable expenses is that it means 1. a decent level of candidates will come forward and 2. they will be less likely to be open to corruption and bribes.
Going back to the original point, I've a feeling Fry was stitched up by Newsnight...
[cite]www.twitter.com/stephenfry[/cite]Oh, I'm such an arse. Why can't I keep my mouth shut? Miserable all day at being portrayed as "the MPs' friend". As if. My own fault tho...
He was asked a question before anyone knew of the stuff about moats and housekeepers and whatever (although after Hazel Blears was on the fiddle) which has really encapsulated people's anger. The interview gets chopped for TV, and goes out as people are just discovering this stuff about chandeliers. The full interview lays into journalists' hypocrisy instead of sticking up for MPs. And he's got a point...
the edited version that Carly Burn's commenting on, which was on TV and then pushed on the front page of the BBC News website all the next morning, leading a few hundred thousand people to think "crikey, Fry's an arse, isn't he?"
If anyone's doing GCSE Media Studies, this is a good case study of manipulation :-)
(None of this excuses the sheer brass neck of the MPs concerned, who I think should have the whips withdrawn on all sides, then we might as well have a general election now and flush this rotten lot out once and for all.)
Comments
Why not put them all in student hall type accomodation? All dorms should be mixed re ethnicity and religion, and say a curfew at 23:30. Anyone setting off the fire alarm should be banned, whilst cleaning the fridge should be a shared duty.
forcing the money grabbing self serving bstds to work in their constituancy
The system needs to be transparant and detailed down to every penny because it is a public office, and meet the requirements of the job, plus having enough checks to make it hard to abuse. I rather liked the halls of residence idea.
I am not saying they need a bed and a kettle you can make things look nice and neat for them so it is like living in a swanky flat but please explain why someone should have the right to claim for a 2nd home that they only live in for a period of time unless we only pay for it in the weeks/months that they actually live in it.
What is wrong with that system if they are in London for 70-80% of their working lives then how do they know what their constituants want.
Take the guy from Luton as a prime example
He didnt claim for a 2nd house in London as there was no need if he needed to stay over he booked a hotel if he didnt he got transport home.
The other mp who lived in the same road claimed for a 2nd home in london and repairs to her seaside house and that benefitted who?
there should be a way that these so called servants of the public do not manipulate our taxes to their gain
What "rules" have the bankers broken as a matter of interest?[/quote]
Sorry not broken rules as the rule of banking is to fleace. But broken laws (as the forthcoming civil claims will show) for taking risks and maximising short term profits (with known losses to come) solely for their own gain at the detriment of their bank, their customers and their country.
and I can never understand why people complain about paying tax (when they get massive benefits for it) and dont complain about paying over the odds (eg for banking) to help create an excessive profit for an instituion where you get nothing in return!
You are quite right that the system has to work but you cannot expect the MP`s to suffer in terms of their lifestyle in order to carry out their elected role any more than we should expect those same people to try to abuse a system of allowances.
the point is if you take such a role on you should be doing it for the role not just the trappings that such a role offers.
No one forced them to run for MP they took the political role to serve the people.
i still think that there should be an accomodation for them to move into when needed it doesnt have to be a dingy pad but there could be enough to cover them all when required
I do take your point but that is the same argument used when discussing nurses low pay. "They knew the pay and conditions when they took the job" Its not valid for nurses or imho for MP`s
Yes they need a place to work that is secure (govt papers and all that) but why a 2nd home.
Decent flat is fine and can be given to the next MP when they retire/get slung out.
What was there was a OK system to pay reasonable expenses but SOME MPs abused it so now they will all suffer. Tis always the way.
I would be happy to be her secretary/cleaner but I draw the line at staring in the porn films : - )
Again I do take the point but just because some MP`s have abused their trust I do not see why other honest hard working MP`s should suffer. If we have to put in place a system so restrictive just because MP`s cannot be trusted then I think we might just as well turn it all in.
you cant compare nurses and MPs mate one does it for the satisfaction of the role the others seem to do it for personal gain and not much else
I understand the point about low wages for the nurses but perhaps if these greedy bstds hadnt claimied for the heli pad to be kept clear and the posh tarpulin over the front door they could get a better rise it is all wrong
as henners and Razil have suggested it could be done differently and easily
vote for me and i will make sure it happens
www.NTHLONDONADDICKFORPM.com
The argument for paying MPs a decent wages with reasonable expenses is that it means 1. a decent level of candidates will come forward and 2. they will be less likely to be open to corruption and bribes.
telling people they will pay back x amount of £s and why or be expelled from the party
good move that man
now thats sensible
Cameron has spoken
Gordon Brown silence--- wh advises this guy ?
Norman Tebbit has said dont vote fot the 4 leading parties on 6th June .
last two are stunning.
He was asked a question before anyone knew of the stuff about moats and housekeepers and whatever (although after Hazel Blears was on the fiddle) which has really encapsulated people's anger. The interview gets chopped for TV, and goes out as people are just discovering this stuff about chandeliers. The full interview lays into journalists' hypocrisy instead of sticking up for MPs. And he's got a point...
the edited version that Carly Burn's commenting on, which was on TV and then pushed on the front page of the BBC News website all the next morning, leading a few hundred thousand people to think "crikey, Fry's an arse, isn't he?"
the full version which the BBC didn't put up for 13 hours, in which you can see some of the context of what he said.
If anyone's doing GCSE Media Studies, this is a good case study of manipulation :-)
(None of this excuses the sheer brass neck of the MPs concerned, who I think should have the whips withdrawn on all sides, then we might as well have a general election now and flush this rotten lot out once and for all.)
Heh. I don't care whether Fry's right or wrong, really, but he's entitled to an opnion, and he's certainly been shat on by Newsnight, whatever.