Corruption

redporshe said:
Thats unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Why is it unreasonable?

What if you represented Carlisle?
Click to expand...

Bad ******* luck. Man up and pay your own travel expenses or **** off and get a new job.

Australia is three times the size of western Europe, but you don't see us paying our MPs to keep second homes just because they have to be in Canberra a few times a year. So why does this country do it?
 
Evangelion said:
Why is it unreasonable?



Bad ******* luck. Man up and pay your own travel expenses or **** off and get a new job.

Australia is three times the size of western Europe, but you don't see us paying our MPs to keep second homes just because they have to be in Canberra a few times a year. So why does this country do it?
Click to expand...

We'd see MPs turn up for votes even less often, and think of all the USB keys and laptops left on trains. ;)
 
Instead of being able to claim expenses for all these things have few blocks of flats in London which the government owns and whilst they are an MP they get to stay in one.

And these should be just basic flats, (think travel lodge quality accommodation), as after all they shouldn't be partying on down in them they should be going back to there constituencies to meet their voters and just spending their time in London working. And no fancy plasma TV's etc ... basic LCD with freeview gives them the news and they shouldn't need any more than that unless they pay for it themselves out of their salaries.
 
It appears to be a minority that have actually broken the rules regarding expenses. More will no doubt be found in the coming weeks but nonetheless a huge number of politicians claim within the rules. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the set of rules regarding expenses is a different matter entirely. The sweeping generalisation that politicians are all corrupt is not only incorrect, but serves to damage democracy in this country.

An awful lot of people seem to be confusing corruption with a lack of morals. Ignoring the small group of politicians that will be proven to have made fradulent claims, we are left with a large group of politicians who will be pilliored for making claims that were essentially within the guidelines. People will point out that the MPs make the rules so it's an unfair system and yes, an indepent body ought to set the rules regarding expenses in the future, but for now they don't so it's a moot point.

If I was a non-cabinet MP earning £65k a year whilst numerous civil servants earn wages in the £100-200k bracket then I would certainly be milking the system, within the rules, for all I could get. They simply don't earn wages comparable with the importance of their work.

A solution would be to bring MP wages into line with those at the top end of the civil service whilst simultaneously making MPs adhere to the same, more stringent, expense rules as in the civil service. Do this and watch the torrent of new outrage at MP wages.
 
Given that the money being spent is taken from taxpayers under duress, I think we certainly should have a right to judge how it is being spent.
 
I still don't understand why they have second homes in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
Indeed, either provided dormitories or a (fixed and reasonable) hotel allowance would be better if it's deemed still necessary to cover expenses.
 
Evangelion said:
I still don't understand why they have second homes in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
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. 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.

I've no issue with second homes per se, but what I do have an issue with is MPs claiming anything upto the best part of £30k a year of public money on their second property and then selling it and pocketing the cash.
 
nydryl said:
If I was a non-cabinet MP earning £65k a year whilst numerous civil servants earn wages in the £100-200k bracket then I would certainly be milking the system, within the rules, for all I could get.
Click to expand...

How many civil servants earn wages in the £100-200k bracket?

They simply don't earn wages comparable with the importance of their work.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. They enjoy massive pensions and a host of privileges such as free travel, etc. Many of them also receive second incomes from non-executive positions obtained through their connections with industry representatives.

MPs are on the biggest gravy train in town, with the potential to make huge amounts of money from a relatively short tenure. Why do you think there are so many applicants for the job?
 
Dolph said:
Indeed, either provided dormitories or a (fixed and reasonable) hotel allowance would be better if it's deemed still necessary to cover expenses.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be, it was tried in Sweden and failed. The second home allowance is reasonable and it is ridiculous to suggest that the leaders of our country live in dormotories whilst they live in London (away from their families) so that they can better represent their constituents.
 
nydryl said:
It wouldn't be, it was tried in Sweden and failed. The second home allowance is reasonable and it is ridiculous to suggest that the leaders of our country live in dormotories whilst they live in London (away from their families) so that they can better represent their constituents.
Click to expand...

The current situation of how they are spending the money given to them clearly shows that the second home allowance as in place now is not reasonable.
 
Jokester said:
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. 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.

I've no issue with second homes per se, but what I do have an issue with is MPs claiming anything upto the best part of £30k a year of public money on their second property and then selling it and pocketing the cash.
Click to expand...

They should build a block of flats, like a apartment block and they all get to live there, free. But never own it, and when the next government comes along, they move out. Obviously the building would be security hazard but it'll be no more than Westminster or No.10.
 
What I love is the justification "well, MP's aren't paid enough 68k is small change, but instead of making the unpopular move of giving us a massive pay rise we'll to the sneaky, dishonest thing and do it by the back door".

They say that GP's earn 100,000 a year (yes, some do, but many earn much less) so they should get the same - let's not forget, GP's bumper pay packets were due to poor negotiation on the government's side. Why should MP's get more than other public servants who work just as, if not, harder (teachers, ambulance drivers, police officers etc. - they all arguably do a much more important job IMHO). You shouldn't go into politics for the money, it should be to serve your country and nothing else. Let's get back to the days when MP's did it in their spare time which would have a great side effect in that we'd probably have less stupid laws passed for one.
 
Dolph said:
The current situation of how they are spending the money given to them clearly shows that the second home allowance as in place now is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fubsy said:
Because we let them FFS.

They'll all get away with it, they'll be no protests, and we'll all just carry on while they spin their way out of it and we all forget.
Click to expand...

it's the reason why i don't vote

screw dormitories they should all be put in camps, the countrys in a recession yet they still think its alright to waste our tax paying money on luxuaries while thousands are being made redundant and the governments spending billions to bail out failing companies.

MW
 
footman said:
This bunch of politicians are absolutely corrupt.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6211535.ece
Click to expand...

You Can't say that!!! I'm tiring of all this "SMASH THE SYSTEM" Keyboard Che Guevara Crusade!!!!!! TutTut

How dare you acuse the system of being corrupt, someone did exactly that only a couple of days ago and the vigilante's on this board would have strung him up by his testicles and urinated in his mouth!!!

In the words of the absolute Legend that is John Mccririck "HOW DARE YOU!!"
 
philjohn said:
What I love is the justification "well, MP's aren't paid enough 68k is small change, but instead of making the unpopular move of giving us a massive pay rise we'll to the sneaky, dishonest thing and do it by the back door".

They say that GP's earn 100,000 a year (yes, some do, but many earn much less) so they should get the same - let's not forget, GP's bumper pay packets were due to poor negotiation on the government's side. Why should MP's get more than other public servants who work just as, if not, harder (teachers, ambulance drivers, police officers etc. - they all arguably do a much more important job IMHO). You shouldn't go into politics for the money, it should be to serve your country and nothing else. Let's get back to the days when MP's did it in their spare time which would have a great side effect in that we'd probably have less stupid laws passed for one.
Click to expand...

It isn't justification but it needs to be looked at from both sides.

MPs are involved at the highest level in the running of this country and ought to be paid a top level wage. Of course they should get paid more than police officers, teachers and ambulance drivers (who are also very important, before a torrent of abuse comes in.) Do you want a communist Britain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom