MPs at it again - Channel 4

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Unless already rich, would any middle business man /women be willing to live like that for that amount of time each year, year after year?
Would you?

I personally know two upper middle business men that do it year after year, in the private sector and not just in the UK.

I did live a peripatetic lifestyle for several year, again in the private sector.

Perhaps some of our MPs are just too comfortable and have lost the hunger.

GeorgeHowell

Blair exacerbated all this greatly with a typical shady fudge. This was by promising MPs an effective free for all on expenses, which nobody would ever find out about, in exchange for settling for perceived low basic salaries, so he would not have to face a public backlash by agreeing to increase the salaries. He then also passed the Freedom on Information Act which meant it could not be kept quiet. But in typical Teflon Tony fashion he was out of the line of fire, and working hard on the Blair Rich Project, by the time the manure collided with the ventilation equipment. MPs now have a sense of entitlement about their expenses, which will not be assuaged until and unless the salaries are lifted to where they believe they should be.

CLAPTON

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Blair exacerbated all this greatly with a typical shady fudge. This was by promising MPs an effective free for all on expenses, which nobody would ever find out about, in exchange for settling for perceived low basic salaries, so he would not have to face a public backlash by agreeing to increase the salaries. He then also passed the Freedom on Information Act which meant it could not be kept quiet. But in typical Teflon Tony fashion he was out of the line of fire, and working hard on the Blair Rich Project, by the time the manure collided with the ventilation equipment. MPs now have a sense of entitlement about their expenses, which will not be assuaged until and unless the salaries are lifted to where they believe they should be.

it's generally agreed that is was Thatcher that refused to impliment an 'independant' review of MPs salaries and so allowed expenses to 'supplement' them.

GeorgeHowell

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's generally agreed that is was Thatcher that refused to impliment an 'independant' review of MPs salaries and so allowed expenses to 'supplement' them.

That's true, and that's why I said that Blair exacerbated it rather than started it. A lot of the types that got in in 1997 are perceived to have been more 'feral' about it all than most were prior to that.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

The timescale is in my view, very important.

personally I wouldn't wish to be absent from my family for 4 days a week and for say 25 weeks a year.

I would not want my MPs to do that either.

One has to form one own opinion on the matter.

Whether you are content with the current government ministers is a matter for you to decide, but providing poor living conditions is unlike to attract a decent quality of cabinet ministers.
Unless already rich, would any middle business man /women be willing to live like that for that amount of time each year, year after year?
Would you?

Define poor living conditions? The same conditions loads of others have to live in?

To have that provided to them as part of the job would be fine IMO. If they don't want that as it's beneath them, then they can go and pay their own way.

Our Army personnel don't get such luxury and choice. I'd rather they did out of the two groups to be honest.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Define poor living conditions? The same conditions loads of others have to live in?

To have that provided to them as part of the job would be fine IMO. If they don't want that as it's beneath them, then they can go and pay their own way.

Our Army personnel don't get such luxury and choice. I'd rather they did out of the two groups to be honest.

My view is I would want people with experience and some talent to be our cabinet ministers.

I believe that good people would be less inclined to become MPs if living standards were below those that a reasonable 'middle class' person would reasonably expect.

Indeed this would be better than many people experience.

The alternative as I see it, is a lot of posh rich boys who can self fund and/or 'career' politicians whose sole experience is working for a political party.

So for me, a politician will young children should have accommodation that provides for their partner and their children similar to that which 'middle class' people would experience in their ordinary home.

chewmylegoff

MPs salaries should be abolished as well as expenses. The number of MPs should be reduced to 100, who should be elected by a simple PR system. Then set up a website and the entire electorate can vote for their favourite MP by text each week - it will be just like x-factor but each text would be charged at 11p, of which simon cowell gets 1p and the MP gets 10p. Each week the one with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and eventually we end up with a benevolent dictator who is really popular with he public (probably a page 3 girl). Job done.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

My view is I would want people with experience and some talent to be our cabinet ministers.

I believe that good people would be less inclined to become MPs if living standards were below those that a reasonable 'middle class' person would reasonably expect.

Indeed this would be better than many people experience.

The alternative as I see it, is a lot of posh rich boys who can self fund and/or 'career' politicians whose sole experience is working for a political party.

So for me, a politician will young children should have accommodation that provides for their partner and their children similar to that which 'middle class' people would experience in their ordinary home.

In what other situation do our public service have such luxuries, whereby they get something over and above what the average person requires?

The army get barracks, and houses if they have a family. Nurses & Doctors required to stay in the hospitals get a dorm (have you ever seen a consultants living area for those on call? I have, and it even had shared toilet blocks...) Firefighters get a bed. The navy get dorms, or again, houses if they are required to move their family, but certainly nothing special. Hell, the PM and Chancellor get a set apartment.

Of course, if they wish, they can all pay for better.

Under what reasoning should MP's get better than every other public servant? And indeed, most private workers? Because you think they will leave if they don't get above the average person? And you describe these people who would throw their toys as good people?

In what way is a one bed flat not suitable for the kids to stay over every now and again? Air bed not good enough for them? Not sure that the kids staying over would be that high on the needs list however, as most should be in school most of the time, not swanning on holiday down in the big smoke.

No employer as far as I'm aware will pay your interest under expenses, I'm not sure how it even works with the tax and perks system. Let alone paying your rent when you have swapped your house with a co-worker to maximise the expenses. That would be a disciplinary offence in the private sector.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In what other situation do our public service have such luxuries, whereby they get something over and above what the average person requires?

The army get barracks, and houses if they have a family. Nurses & Doctors required to live in the hospitals get a dorm. Firefighters get a bed. The navy get dorms, or again, houses if they are required to move their family, but certainly nothing special. Hell, the PM and Chancellor get a set apartment.

Of course, if they wish, they can all pay for better.

Under what reasoning should MP's get better than every other public servant? And indeed, most private workers? Because you think they will leave if they don't get above the average person? And you describe these people who would throw their toys as good people?

I don't consider a reasonably family home in London a luxory if you are spending 4/5 nights there each week for say 25-30 weeks per year.

You do; I accept that but it would attract the 'wrong' sort of people in my view as already outlined in my previous post.

You may well prefer to be ruled by a few squaddies who are happy to bunk down in a barracks; not my choice but that's democracy.

Graham_Devon

I'm not talking about putting them in barracks and you have purposely confused my point to make your own, soemwhat bizzare point pretending I want army squaddies ruling the country.

I just don't see why someone needs a family home, for an arrangement to cover them while they are away from their family.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I just cannot understand why you believe MPs should be entitled to more than pretty much anyone else, simply because they are MPs.