yes they do.................the difference is that the public sector is regulated and subject to a real squeeze at the moment cos its politically good to be seen to be doing it (obviously apart from the politicians who are public sector employees as well) and the private sector that YOU the public are having to pay for atm what ever price they want and command especially for essential needs like gasa electric water yadda yadda .....with hikes around 10%........
Executive pay is out of control with exec and non exec directors of different companies all scratching each others backs. There is no such thing as an independent remuneration committee.
quite. i had to leave London which has adversely affected my career as all the music work is down there. most of family have either had to move out due to the exhorbitant cost of living, or are in shitty rented accomodation..Only one person in my entire extended family down there owns there own house, everyone else rents...
Hilarious post. Back in the real world, MPs are required to have homes both in their constituency and in Westminster, and to travel regularly between the two. If they had to pay for all expenses out of their £62K salary before tax, and keep two homes, and feed their families, nobody could possibly be an MP unless they were independently wealthy. So it seems that efcbluepete is in favour of moving back to the old pre-1905 system in which all MP's had to be wealthy enough not to need salaries or expenses, and ordinary people trying to make a career and earn money to support their families were totally excluded. I didn't realise there was anybody left who still thought like that. So the question is: Does anybody else think all MPs should have to be independently wealthy? Or should they be paid suitable salaries and expenses?
That's not entirely accurate Pete. My job requires me to travel, stay overnight in not too expensive hotels, travel to London regularly and also work antisocial hours (rather link an MP, although I would say that I actually work for a living).... I'm not required to have 2 homes, I commute, I claim expenses for my travel which I don't see as a bad thing for the MP's as long as they are honest about it.... Oh!... Hang about!!... Also, the government also pay for MP's accomodation in Westminster via the MP's apartments which I'm guessing any of them can book into when 'staying late in the bar' (sorry, office)... Why do they insist on having a 2nd London home when it is clearly not necessary and several of them have been caught fiddling when they do by renting it out, but still claiming mortgage expenses?
Good try Pete. I don't recall advocating what you suggest, or is that what you qualified debaters call a "straw man", ie create a whole other argument that can then be shot down easily? I don't think it is very true to think mps have a family home at their constituency and a London accommodation. In my experience, they spend most of their time in London, and have a token office address at their constituency. Eg, a "local" mp up here actually has an estate in Oxfordshire and very rarely actually visits his constituency. But as he was a Tory defector he was given a safe seat (any higher level primate wearing a labour rosette would be voted in here). I run teams of engineers across Europe and Latin America, with clients all over the world. Doesn't mean I need a home in any location other than my home. And I get paid noticeably less than an mp.
perhaps the question is, if MP's are allowed to claim such exorbitant expenses, should they also be allowed to sit on multiple boards of multiple companies, and be the benefactors of dividends and shares in addition to drawing a handsome salary? nobody i think really minds reasonable expenses, but we are all well aware of how politicans not only made the rules, but then abused them with their claims..now theyre trying a new tactic, and were sitting here putting up with it... returning to the system of independant wealth is misdirection. The vast majority of politicians ARE independantly wealthy, AND freely abuse the system. to think or say otherwise is incredibly misinformed or naive. Most are privately educated trustafaireans from priviledged backgrounds. Why dont ALL of the politicians that are not resident in London live in a block of secure apartments? There are enough vacant properties in London for this to happen...Im sure many people would be in favour of them living in controlled accomodation..If its good enough for students, its good enough for MP's. These would be clean, modern, comfortable but modest flats with amenities provided...rather like very nice halls of residence.
Why not move parliament to say leighton Buzzard for example..........wouldnt cost half as much.............its this sort of "working different" approach thats constantly rammed down my throat at work so why not Mp's!
Any potential candidate seeking adoption by a major party invariably has to have a home in the constituency, or promise to get one if elected. And an MP working in Westminster most of the week also has to have somewhere to live not too far away. They could live in hotels for much of the year, for several years on end - but if you think that would be a way of saving money think again.
Wait til you see what judges get with country houses and hot and cold running services for them whilst 'away'!:wink:
Moving parliament and everything that is associated with it to Leighton Buzzard would certainly be possible, at the cost of an enormous sum of money running into tens of billions. If you really think that would be a wise way to spend taxpayers money at present, try standing for MP yourself and see if you can persuade anybody to agree with you.
When High Court judges are away from London on circuit, they stay in "judges' lodgings" which are well-appointed houses set aside for the purpose at a few main centres. They stay there in splendid isolation. Perhaps you would prefer them to mix with the local nobs and gentry, which is what they used to do before judges' lodgings were introduced? On the whole, most people think the independence of the judicial system is better served by keeping them in isolation. District judges, Circuit judges and Tribunal judges just have to rough it in ordinary hotels.
Now you are wriggling; what "most MPs are" is not the question. The issue is perfectly clear: Should it be possible for a poor man to become an MP? Or should having independent wealth be an essential prerequisite for evermore? This is a straight question, so will you give a straight answer? I thought not.
Pete may I ask what it is that you do for a living? Whilst I understand that this may appear to be incredibly intrusive, and you may tell me in your you're own inimitable style to go forth and multiply. I am none the less incredibly interested and nosey? Thanks Tim
This is a good point. Everyone who becomes an MP today was earning a living as something else yesterday, such as maybe a writer, journalist, lawyer, doctor, academic, company director, trade union leader, etc. Should they all have to give up their occupations and incomes completely? And immediately? Or are there only certain occupations you think they should stop? Which ones? When the person ceases to be an MP (often after only a few years), would it be feasible for them to resume their previous job? If that is not available or feasible, should they not then get payments to cover the gap? Perhaps the point needs to be made that MPs are not convicts up for sentencing, and they are not children, or students. These are people who have been elected by the voters to do an extremely senior, responsible and demanding job in the public eye. Many are highly qualified and experienced. They are responsible for £billions of public money among many other things. I am glad we live in a country where people feel free to make ill-informed, sneering, abusive comments about politicians without any fear. That doesn't mean it is obligatory to do so.
