I often wonder why elected officials take on such a task. Is it because they wish to do some good in their sphere of influence, or because they want their noses in the trough. I would like to think its the former but in a large majority of cases I fear its the latter.
See post #33. The government never pays anything to MPs, unless they are ministers. Parliament provides one apartment for the Speaker, but not for the other 649 MPs. They get the use of offices, libraries, meeting rooms, and restaurants but not living accommodation.
Since the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, MPs salaries and expenses are defined and paid by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). It is for IPSA to define what is suitable. IPSA has recently ruled that the old system (i.e. of paying MPs a hopelessly outdated salary but making it up with over-generous expenses) should be replaced with a more realistic salary and tightly controlled expenses. I must say I think that is right in principle, and should have been done many years ago. Again it seems some people struggle to grasp that out there in the real world there are grotesquely overpaid people getting £500K or £1million, and there are highly qualified people doing difficult, responsible jobs who regularly get salaries of £75K, £100K, £150K or £200K. Those of us on more modest incomes look a bit foolish moaning at MPs £65K salaries, but saying nothing about all those who get more (e.g. all GP doctors). Newspaper editors on vast salaries are particularly prone to criticise for being 'overpaid' those paid a fraction of their own pay - Paul Dacre of the Mail is a byword for hypocrisy over this.
Best post yet. If you feel it's an easy job, that any Pratt can of it and it's nothing but s gravy train, what's stopping any of you keyboard-prime ministers getting involved? Unlike the head of a council, or police force, or fat cat bankers, you are all equally qualified to do it. So do it
but, most of us have a contract which forbids us from having other employment (or at least once certain levels are reached in professional positions). I have had various offers of "extra-curricula" work, with no conflict of interest, and could have been done during unpaid leave or annual leave, but my contract does not permit this. The argument being that if a person is employed in a professional position, paid quite well for it, then they should focus their mind and activities into the needs of their employer. Why should an MP be any different? [/QUOTE]... 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.[/QUOTE] I, too, am glad we can express free speech and voice our opinions. And whilst we don't share the same opinion about our elected representatives, that doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid that your own, and nor would I demean myself to petty intellectual jibes about anybody else's opinions. our MPs have shown themselves to be the trough snouting, greedy, arrogant individuals that they are, and I, and probably a vast majority of the general public, have little reason to have any faith in the moral fibre of them until they stand up and show that they are doing the work of the people, for the good of the people*. *there are some genuinely morally guided people working as MPs, but as with many things, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Hmm... Interesting point. Was just watching the local London news, and it would seem that 4 new so called 'super highways' that have been put in for cyclists (I won't say built), have cost a staggering £10m each. Basically what they have done is paint sections of roads blue. How the fuck does this cost that sort of money? Yep! They are all very responsible!
Also, it appears the majority of people on here think that MP's are a cunch of bunts who are on a gravy train. Oddly I've not met many people who would stand up for politicians as much as some peeps on here...
For an honest and open understanding of MP's just subscribe to Private Eye. Therein is the answer as too whether MP's are lying unscrupulous bastards only out for themselves, or pillars of the community that they serve. Unfortunately the lines are now very blurred between parties.
No it wouldnt ........but its that kind of attitude that would expect it to that is the problem...........im sure there are numerous empty buildings where it would be suitable with a couple of meeting rooms and somewhere for a larger meeting room....and the train stops there! They could of course convert one of the rooms for the tax free bar for their little handbag sessions.....they dont need all that size space and pomp to do their job......their job should be out in the community of their constituents sorting out shit and listening to the people ........
You have just given an example of money spent by a local authority, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Parliament or with any MPs. And yet you seem to claim this has some relevance to the topic under discussion. ???
Go to Westminster, observe parliament, speak to some MPs, sit in on some committees, read Hansard, look at some Bills, listen to the arguments ... and then after a while you might start to gain a faint inkling of what you're talking about.
The 650 MPs are quite varied. Rich and poor, clever and stupid, altruistic and greedy, upper middle and lower class - all British life is represented, which is the whole point really. Many of them are extremely able people who could make a lot more money doing something else; some who lose their seats are on the dole (literally). A few are world-class statesmen whom we are lucky to have. I don't hesitate to criticise the ones I disapprove of, or find wanting; nor to praise the efforts of the best ones. Rhetorically rolling the whole lot together and condemning all indiscriminately is, in my opinion, just ignorant.
If you want to read today the stories which will be 'news' in the national newspapers in 12 months time, get Private Eye. There's nothing like it. And it's funny too.
If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that when they become MPs, those who are writers should be forbidden from writing, those who are lawyers should dump all their clients, those who are academics should abandon their research, those who are farmers should cease farming their land, and those who own businesses should be forced to sell them. So is that what you're saying, or not?
Well, yes, it does. They are elected representatives who want to be MP's if they had the chance...just as crooked, probably more so as they are not so much in the public eye...
Pete, you are just coming across as belligerent, hypocritical and a bit of a knob to be honest. The general consensus is that MP's are money grubbing and crooked. Most of them have something to hide as they don't get to that position without shitting on a few 'plebs'... I rest my case with the below wiki... Political scandals in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When they are being paid to represent their electorate and serve the public good, yes. They get good recompense to do so. If they feel that they cannot survive on that without extra income then they should leave public service and use their undoubted skills in the private sector. When MPs have other 'interests' sometimes their impartiality could be called into question if these interests clash with their public service duty.
