Corruption

[Sankari]

I dunno what the set up is like in Australia, but in the UK MPs need to live in London for parliament and also in their local constituency for dealing with the public.

In Australia each state has its own local parliament, which is attended by state MPs. There is also a federal parliament in Canberra, comprising a Senate and a House of Representatives. Despite the vast distances involved, our MPs have no trouble attending their state parliaments and/or Parliament House in Canberra without the privilege of second homes. So what makes British MPs so special?

Given that they will be spending a lot or most of their time in London it would seem unreasonable for them to be expected to sell their family home to live in London and end up with no where to live when they return to their constituency.

But they don't spend "a lot or most of their time in London". And there is no need for them to sell their family home to live in London. Aussie MPs don't, so why would British MPs?

An MP in Western Australia needs to travel 3,088km on a 4.5-hour plane trip just to reach Parliament House in Canberra. When he gets there, he has to make his own accommodation arrangements.

By contrast, an MP in Carlisle only needs to travel 420km to reach London. When he gets there, he can put his feet up in a taxpayer-subsidised second home.

Pathetic.

 

[Dolph]

I completely agree that as it stands rules regarding expenses are unreasonable. I don't agree that the £24,000 secod home allowance is unreasonable. It might appear that I support the current situation, but I don't. I just think it ought to be pointed out that the majority of MPs were playing by the rules and can't be labelled, without evidence, as corrupt.

It is entirely unreasonable, given the lack of demonstrable productivity improvement, for them to be spending taxpayers money in this way.

How can we ever hope to get a fiscally responsible government when they all have their noses in the trough to start with?

 

[Sankari]

50 within the health service alone earn over £100k.

Source? 50 out of how many civil servants in the health service?

 

[NEOMARXIST]

Do you want a communist Britain?

Er, Yer!!! The place would be much fairer, the distribution of wealth much more even, the divide between the richest and poorest much narrower, the men in suits "Bourgeosie" would be seen for what they really are, Britain would still have industry and actually 'make' things. So yes, why not.
Where's the problem. Of course it will never happen as there are too many people who are doing "very nicely thankyou".
Makes me laugh how communism is made a 'dirty' word.
*Not a communist society per se but instead a 'Socialist' one.* The country, but more importantly the majority of people would be better off for it. You may have to sacrifice your £60,000 car but oh well, you'll survive I'm sure.

 

[Jokester]

In Australia each state has its own local parliament, which is attended by state MPs. There is also a federal parliament in Canberra, comprising a Senate and a House of Representatives. Despite the vast distances involved, our MPs have no trouble attending their state parliaments and/or Parliament House in Canberra without the privilege of second homes. So what makes British MPs so special?



But they don't spend "a lot or most of their time in London". And there is no need for them to sell their family home to live in London. Aussie MPs don't, so why would British MPs?

An MP in Western Australia needs to travel 3,088km on a 4.5-hour plane trip just to reach Parliament House in Canberra. When he gets there, he has to make his own accommodation arrangements.

By contrast, an MP in Carlisle only needs to travel 420km to reach London. When he gets there, he can put his feet up in a taxpayer-subsidised second home.

Pathetic.

But how much does an Australian MP earn?

Over $100k a year, which gives them substantially more buying power than a UK MP on £60k a year. So in effect they are already getting a second home allowance, just that it's incorporated into the salary.

 

[nydryl]

It is entirely unreasonable, given the lack of demonstrable productivity improvement, for them to be spending taxpayers money in this way.

How can we ever hope to get a fiscally responsible government when they all have their noses in the trough to start with?

How do you intend to measure the productivity improvement given the length of time that the second home allowance has been in place.

What would you say is a reasonable solution? Perhaps a vastly reduced second home allowance, or an allowance that is only claimable for your first x years as an MP?

 

[Dolph]

Er, Yer!!! The place would be much fairer, the distribution of wealth much more even, the divide between the richest and poorest much narrower, the men in suits "Bourgeosie" would be seen for what they really are, Britain would still have industry and actually 'make' things. So yes, why not.
Where's the problem. Of course it will never happen as there are too many people who are doing "very nicely thankyou".
Makes me laugh how communism is made a 'dirty' word.
*Not a communist society per se but instead a 'Socialist' one.* The country, but more importantly the majority of people would be better off for it. You may have to sacrifice your £60,000 car but oh well, you'll survive I'm sure.

Oh dear, someone who thinks the only way for people to be equal is to drag them all to the bottom.

Socialism/commuism doesn't work, it can't work, and it's about the most unfree society you can be in when you cannot control your own life.

 

[Gaygle]

Er, Yer!!! The place would be much fairer, the distribution of wealth much more even, the divide between the richest and poorest much narrower, the men in suits "Bourgeosie" would be seen for what they really are, Britain would still have industry and actually 'make' things. So yes, why not.
Where's the problem. Of course it will never happen as there are too many people who are doing "very nicely thankyou".
Makes me laugh how communism is made a 'dirty' word.
*Not a communist society per se but instead a 'Socialist' one.* The country, but more importantly the majority of people would be better off for it. You may have to sacrifice your £60,000 car but oh well, you'll survive I'm sure.

It's been demonstrated that communism doesn't work. The theory is sound (well if you want to be "on the same level" as the local hobo), but practically, it doesn't work at all. Not sure why i'm having to explain this to you, but... nvm

EDIT: also, are you really 24 years old? You seem more like a 16 yr old who's been listening to the lyrics of anarchic punk bands.

 

[nydryl]

Er, Yer!!! The place would be much fairer, the distribution of wealth much more even, the divide between the richest and poorest much narrower, the men in suits "Bourgeosie" would be seen for what they really are, Britain would still have industry and actually 'make' things. So yes, why not.
Where's the problem. Of course it will never happen as there are too many people who are doing "very nicely thankyou".
Makes me laugh how communism is made a 'dirty' word.
*Not a communist society per se but instead a 'Socialist' one.* The country, but more importantly the majority of people would be better off for it. You may have to sacrifice your £60,000 car but oh well, you'll survive I'm sure.

Didn't work, doesn't work, wouldn't work. You might be under the illusion that communism would drag you up, but it would only serve to drag everyone else down.

 

[Sankari]

But how much does an Australian MP earn?

Over $100k a year, which gives them substantially more buying power than a UK MP on £60k a year. So in effect they are already getting a second home allowance, just that it's incorporated into the salary.

Er, not quite.

The British parliamentary base is £63k. The Australian parliamentary base is $127k.

$127k at the current exchange rate = £64k, which does not translate into "substantially more buying power" than a British MP on £63k plus a £25k second home allowance (equivalent to $176k).

 

[Jokester]

Er, not quite.

The British parliamentary base is £63k. The Australian parliamentary base is $127k.

$127k at the current exchange rate = £64k, which does not translate into "substantially more buying power" than a British MP on £63k plus a £25k second home allowance.

That would be true if everything in Oz was "twice" the price, but it's not. Average house price in Canberra is about £200k, average price in London is £350k. And the figures for London will be substantially less than they were in June 2007 when the Oz ones were measured.

Therefore they do have much greater buying power.

 

[NEOMARXIST]

Wow, I weren't expecting those replies!!!haha, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree! Whats wrong with everyone being more equal in society? Who said anything about Hobo's? It is you guys who speak like the 16 year old not I, in your blinkered, so-obvious retorts to my views. Of course you are not willing to ever listen as like I said 'you are doing very nicley thankyou' and you like to think of yourselves as being "better" than people merely because you have more wealth/material possessions.
Thanks for your replies.

 

[NEOMARXIST]

It's been demonstrated that communism doesn't work. The theory is sound (well if you want to be "on the same level" as the local hobo), but practically, it doesn't work at all. Not sure why i'm having to explain this to you, but... nvm

EDIT: also, are you really 24 years old? You seem more like a 16 yr old who's been listening to the lyrics of anarchic punk bands.

You sound like an extremely Narrow-minded individual who ain't got a clue what he's talking about and is merely mocking a theory without any research or thought by coming out with ridiculous, "predictable" statements.

 

[Gaygle]

Wow, I weren't expecting those replies!!!haha, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree! Whats wrong with everyone being more equal in society? Who said anything about Hobo's? It is you guys who speak like the 16 year old not I, in your blinkered, so-obvious retorts to my views. Of course you are not willing to ever listen as like I said 'you are doing very nicley thankyou' and you like to think of yourselves as being "better" than people merely because you have more wealth/material possessions.
Thanks for your replies.

Because I, like my friends and family, have worked our arses off to get to where we are and i'm not about to be dragged down to the same level as some unemployed lazy lay-about chav on benefits, just so "everything can be fair".

I'm assuming you've pretty much got nothing to show for your life and that's why you love the fact of dragging everybody else down, so you don't feel like so much of a failure?

 

[Gaygle]

who ain't got a clue what he's talking about and is merely mocking a theory without any research

LOL. And you DO have a clue what you're talking about!? hahaha

Jokes.

 

[nydryl]

You sound like an extremely Narrow-minded individual who ain't got a clue what he's talking about and is merely mocking a theory without any research or thought by coming out with ridiculous, "predictable" statements.

And you decided that communism was the way forward because you can't be bothered working hard and communism seems like an easy way to hauld yourself up to everyone elses level, or bring them down to yours?

 

[Dolph]

Wow, I weren't expecting those replies!!!haha, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree! Whats wrong with everyone being more equal in society? Who said anything about Hobo's? It is you guys who speak like the 16 year old not I, in your blinkered, so-obvious retorts to my views. Of course you are not willing to ever listen as like I said 'you are doing very nicley thankyou' and you like to think of yourselves as being "better" than people merely because you have more wealth/material possessions.
Thanks for your replies.

Equality by force isn't equality, it's a socialist authoritarian nightmare promoted only by the ignorant and the jealous.

 

[NEOMARXIST]

Agree to disagree, fair enough, after all we live in a "Free Democracy" with freedom of speech and the ability to be entitled to your own beliefs/opinions.

 

[Gaygle]

after all we live in a "Free Democracy" with freedom of speech and the ability to be entitled to your own beliefs/opinions.

Unfortunately, under a Communist regime like the one you'd like to see implemented, we wouldn't be entitled to our own beliefs or opinions.

 

[Dolph]

Agree to disagree, fair enough, after all we live in a "Free Democracy" with freedom of speech and the ability to be entitled to your own beliefs/opinions.

Which is why your system must never be implemented, you'd destroy all that, because the people cannot be free when the government controls their property.