Jacqui Smith?

beingjdc

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

We could give them all a fixed amount for second home rent (to be included in wages rather than and expenses).
Hypocrisy and lack of morals are a media favourite.

Tried in 1995, the press did their nut about "MPs' 20% pay rise shocker" and they backed off. Logically it makes perfect sense, but politics isn't a logical game.

The problem for me is how many of them are rubbish, not how much they're getting paid. At the moment an MP, absent allowances, earns 30-40% less than a reasonably senior GP or headteacher.

Those are both useful jobs, but they should at least be about the same level of seniority in public life. The problem is, they're not perceived as earning it - which is odd, the MPs I've worked with work exceptionally hard, probably about 70 hours a week, but they get very little credit for it.

So, are they doing the wrong things, are they really bad communicators, or are we a naturally cynical country?

amcluesent

"Wacqui" Jacqui Spliff has the smallest majority of any cabinet member, approx. 2000 if memory serves which won't survive the tiniest swing to 'call me Dave' Dave.

So after the election she'll be back teaching at dough school. Where I'm sure she'll be taking her full quota of 'sickies'...

MrFonzerelli

beingjdc wrote: »

Tried in 1995, the press did their nut about "MPs' 20% pay rise shocker" and they backed off. Logically it makes perfect sense, but politics isn't a logical game.

The problem for me is how many of them are rubbish, not how much they're getting paid. At the moment an MP, absent allowances, earns 30-40% less than a reasonably senior GP or headteacher.

Those are both useful jobs, but they should at least be about the same level of seniority in public life. The problem is, they're not perceived as earning it - which is odd, the MPs I've worked with work exceptionally hard, probably about 70 hours a week, but they get very little credit for it.

Most people would be content for MPs salary to be higher if in exchange we had a clamp down on corruption, lobby groups and looked into how Mandy afforded his new house.

lostinrates

beingjdc wrote: »

Tried in 1995, the press did their nut about "MPs' 20% pay rise shocker" and they backed off. Logically it makes perfect sense, but politics isn't a logical game.

The problem for me is how many of them are rubbish, not how much they're getting paid. At the moment an MP, absent allowances, earns 30-40% less than a reasonably senior GP or headteacher.

Those are both useful jobs, but they should at least be about the same level of seniority in public life. The problem is, they're not perceived as earning it - which is odd, the MPs I've worked with work exceptionally hard, probably about 70 hours a week, but they get very little credit for it.

So, are they doing the wrong things, are they really bad communicators, or are we a naturally cynical country?

Personally, I fully believe they work hard. I assume most people work hard, my 'London men' work hard, both of them work to some degree at weekends, when I worked I worked hard, long hours too. Most of the farmers locally work hard long hours too. Its not about working hard. Lots of people don't work a 9-5 day, and its hard whether you are milking cows or in an office, or indeed I imagine , an MP. I don't expect to give more, or less, credit to working hard to an MP than I do to anyone else who works hard.

As Mr Fonzerelli says, its not remuneration that disturbs me, or the second homes (I can see why people would prefer to lodge with a sister than bunk down in a bunker between colleagues :rotfl: ) but the 'its different for us' attitude and the fiddling and the lack of moral clarity, ...and this is not a party issue for me.

Graham_Devon

I wish they would provide a set of flats. It would make so much sense. I know they already do have homes, and Jacqui decided not to use it. But one set of flats, one set of security. Less money for us all to pay.

If they wanted more, THEY could pay for it, JUST like the rest of us.

As for the John Lewis list. Well thats just an outright scandal.

It's one thing having the roof over you paid for. But to be able to do it up with £800 lamp tables is downright disgusting. They aint that special.

mewbie_2

All this stuff keeps bringing back memories for me. How about Blunkett and his fast track immigration for his housekeeper? What about Lady Mandelson and the dodgy loan? Let's be honest Fred Goodwin is a bit of amateur compared to this lot... AND HE hasn't actually done anything illegal.

keithboy40

Travel expenses to and from London wont cost £116,000. The amount she claims for a scond home. Shameful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

brazilianwax

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They started to block their expenses coming out because they were exempted from the freedom of information act. They are still working on doing just that.

They also just Vito'd the minutes of the war meetings to overcome the FOI act and also, to overpower judges.

Is it laziness or just convenience in getting your 'point' across that means you conveniently 'forget' the thousands of things that have been released under FoI?

brazilianwax

keithboy40 wrote: »

Travel expenses to and from London wont cost £116,000. The amount she claims for a scond home. Shameful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

£116,000 over 4 years! Not per year! I've already shown that £25k a year is not difficult to rack up when you have a home in London and another elsewhere.

Graham_Devon

brazilianwax wrote: »

£116,000 over 4 years! Not per year! I've already shown that £25k a year is not difficult to rack up when you have a home in London and another elsewhere.

She's got a house share in London.

She pays for one bedroom. Having 2 homes doesn't come into the expense thing. It's either one or the other.