MP's collectively have ultimate power. Individual MP's have little power, but still a lot more than private citizens do. Ministers have powers to make decisions as delegated to them by law, but also can be sacked at a moment's notice for any reason or no reason. Whatever government is in power, the opposition is continually sniping at ministers and trying to bring them down. Usually the ministers in office all support each other, and especially support whichever minister is coming under heavy fire currently. The Prime Minister usually stands by all his ministers - unless it becomes expedient to dump them. Occasionally the opposition succeeds in forcing a minister out, so immediately moves on to some other minister thought to be vulnerable in some way. In July 1962, MacMillan suddenly sacked a third of his cabinet. We haven't seen anything like that since. Oh and Maria Miller? Media hatchet job. There are some current ministers who really really deserve sacking, but she isn't one of them.
And just hoes to show how little the electorate are in the mids of doing what right rather than whats good for them Bring back monarchy rule
Actually, MP salaries are pretty risible in my opinion. Most MPs would be capable of earning far more in the private sector. This constant bickering from people that they are overpaid is so out of touch with the reality of business.
Agree. If they were compensated properly, and they removed most of the expenses and made them just be a politician forsaking all other jobs, dare say you may get a few more working class people step up I reckon they should all get £120k with travel expenses only, and overnight expenses restricted to hotel at max £140 per night in london. No second home allowance. No duck house maintenance. No toilet roll dolly cover purchases
I would be realistic that MPs require London accommodation away from their constituencies. They should work regular hours, the current times parliament sits to late at night is archaic. Building a proper hotel like block of apartments located properly would provide security, stop the expense problems and facilitate easier working for back bench MPs and those not entitled to ministerial lodgings like the higher ranks of government. Currently, MPs are still within a legacy system that traditionally allowed spouses to be employed to supplement a modest MP salary and make up shortfalls compared to the private sector. I'd also lose any unelected second house members, don't even get me started on members of the church representing me without a vote being cast. Finally, having MPs sitting in Scotland and Wales with the English not having rights to decide on certain policies/laws but allowing Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote on those issues in England is an affront to democracy and wholly wrong. We made fundamental changes to representation with parliaments in other countries in the union but left our system pretty much unchanged, I have a huge problem with this.
If we are making fundamental changes cor the betterment to everyone, cane we implement this as well Accident Compensation Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and restore some order and faith in humanity
Ah, this is the famous West Lothian question as raised by Tam Dalyell MP and never satisfactorily answered. If you recall, John Prescott ( as the Deputy Prime Minister) tried to create a series of representative bodies for the regions of England, with each region to have roughly the population of Scotland or Wales. A referendum was held on that proposition, and the people voted NO. So Prescott was forced to abandon the idea.
Indeed the West Lothian question which to my mind keeps a. Labour bias to parliament with MPs representing Scots and primarily voting on English affairs.
i didn't know this. so Scots can influence English only policy but English mps cant influence Scottish policy?
Not sure she'd need to buy her own & the claim for it. No shortage of volunteers to buy it for her...
Under this scheme, the premiums are paid by the groups of people who suffer injuries, instead of by the people whose fault they are. In the case of motorcycles, since bikers are more likely to suffer injuries they have to pay more; and other vehicle users, who are more likely to cause injuries to bikers, pay correspondingly less. Are you sure you want to implement this ACC scheme in the UK, Bradders? Are you really in favour of SMIDSY car drivers getting off scot free, whilst bikers have to pay extra for being injured?
The ACC premiums are paid by everybody who earns, that's employers and employees, by anybody who registers a vehicle, and by part of the fuel tax take, plus part of the general tax take. Everybody is covered by ACC, NZ citizens, residents and visitors, it is a comprehensive no fault personal injury "insurance". The riskier the activity the higher the premium, m/cycles are more expensive to register than cars, forestry companies pay a greater premium than an office type employer etc.... the ACC home page link follows ACC Homepage
Any sane person, who is interested in making sure whatever the reason the outcome is such that the person affected is treated quickly, with the right resources and without fear of loss of income Nd home, would want that scheme. For every claim of negligence, upto half the cost is in legal and other fees, sometimes way more, how many go to court, have long drawn out battle then get £30k compo but with legal bills into the hundreds of thousands? Doesn't take many of those to rape all our premiums
[QUOTE=" Finally, having MPs sitting in Scotland and Wales with the English not having rights to decide on certain policies/laws but allowing Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote on those issues in England is an affront to democracy and wholly wrong.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just Scottish MPs influencing English policy, but when you think of the amount of Scottish ministers, or even Prime Ministers... I have no problem with the Union, and no problem with Devolution. Whatever anyone wants. But it should be a fair system across the board. I assume it is because, really, the English do feel that they are in some way still an occupying power, rather than it being an equal union of 4 countries. Otherwise, you'd be expecting an English assembly. That immediately sounds wrong. Strange, eh?
