Frederick Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Oh what a tangled web we weave ..When first we practice to deceive .! .........Scott must have known a few MP's .... Now that the party leaders in the UK are all calling for lists of family members on MP's staff and their payments to be listed and made public I suspect a lot of webs are being untangled at this moment ......it will be interesting to see who surfaces when pursuaded to stick their heads up ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Abuse of public funds is a European wide disgrace. Elected reps seem to think that they have a right to help themselves to the open purse. But then any branch of government which is not open to scrutiny (with a few exceptions and they are dealt with otherwise) will always be in danger of being abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Woolly I could not agree more ............Anybody who wishes to go on line and look at their local politicians activities will get a surprise as far as allowances are concerned ....UK County Councillors for example £20, 000 + in a year for attending meetings and serving on committees is not unusual ... They can even claim for a dependant relative housed in their homes .....as for Brussels allowances you could put your back out carrying it all home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I don't mind what MPs pay members of their families as long as those family members can be proven to actually do the work. In light of the 'Artic ' ruling, and subsequent adjustment in tax law I suspect I am not the only one.I also heard the other day that MPs in Westminster can draw £250 in petty cash without supporting documentation! If they can, why can't I ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I agree, wholeheartedly, Russet.Interesting point about the final Arctic ruling, too. Having now ruled on Section 660 and also having implemented NCDs and also cancelled the starting 10% Corporation Tax Band, as well as the abortion of IR35 it seems as if NuLab are determined to destroy what was left of SME entrepreneurial spirit.And, as both Wooly B's Bro and Frederick point out, MEPs expenses are simply outrageous!Interesting that no one is prepared to sign off the EU accounts: and this reality has been festering now for some 6 or 7 years!Personally, I strongly object to MPs drawing the salaries and pension rights they currently enjoy: since they make a fist of whatever they are doing anyway.One also notices that they rejected Brown's call for a salary freeze............................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nectarine Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 When I worked, I had to sign a contract which said I couldn't accept any other paid work without informing my employer and getting permission in case of conflict of interest. Fair point, but I am appalled by how many MPs have external paid jobs. I understand they need to know about business issues and all that, but surely there must be occasional conflicts of interest. Also, where do they get the time to do this other work? I reckon they should be full-time MPs, dedicated to the business of Westminster and their constituencies. But if they're off attending other business meetings, for which they get paid, does this come out of their MP's paid time/ I'd get fired if I tried to claim a paid day from my boss in order to do paid work for another employer.Unfortunately, Parliament has 'evolved' rather than been designed. If you were running it as a business you would have set hours (none of these midnight votes!), a core team of researchers and support staff and proper accounts which were independently audited. As this proposal can only be voted by MPs, I doubt any of them would like to upset the nice little gravy train they're riding on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Our politicians seem to think 'one rule for us and one for you'.Hence EU accounts not signed off by auditors for years - we couldn't do that. No petty cash receipts - we couldn't do that etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 [quote user="nectarine"] When I worked, I had to sign a contract which said I couldn't accept any other paid work without informing my employer and getting permission in case of conflict of interest. Fair point, but I am appalled by how many MPs have external paid jobs. I understand they need to know about business issues and all that, but surely there must be occasional conflicts of interest. Also, where do they get the time to do this other work? I reckon they should be full-time MPs, dedicated to the business of Westminster and their constituencies. But if they're off attending other business meetings, for which they get paid, does this come out of their MP's paid time/ I'd get fired if I tried to claim a paid day from my boss in order to do paid work for another employer.Unfortunately, Parliament has 'evolved' rather than been designed. If you were running it as a business you would have set hours (none of these midnight votes!), a core team of researchers and support staff and proper accounts which were independently audited. As this proposal can only be voted by MPs, I doubt any of them would like to upset the nice little gravy train they're riding on.[/quote]As you say 'Parliament has evolved' however the idea of having an elected chamber full of people who have only ever been politicians is not one I find dreadfully appealing.Isn't it better for them to have some actual experience of the real world - how businesses work and what they need, rather than just theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suein56 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 [quote user="Russethouse"]As you say 'Parliament has evolved' however the idea of having an elected chamber full of people who have only ever been politicians is not one I find dreadfully appealing. Isn't it better for them to have some actual experience of the real world - how businesses work and what they need, rather than just theory? [/quote]IMHO the trouble is that the 'work' a lot of MPs find is being on the board of this or that company - the company being desirous of having a 'name' on their board of directors which, in their opinion, reflects well on them. Not quite my idea of actual employment involving real work and experience of the real world.Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 There are as many MP's who come from the public sector and only the public sector if you look carefully, who also can be said to have no experience of the real world or earning a crust. I would advocate that all MP's should have paid employment and interests elsewhere. That way they could be paid a reasonable salary which is a multiple of average wages. With full accountability, not partial as proposed by Gorbals Willie.Some might say that this would not lead to getting the best into Parliament. Well, we dont now as real power lies in Europe anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 spg - in an ideal world I would hope that MPs gained their experience before becoming elected, but quite honestly at the moment it seems pretty unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suein56 Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 [quote user="Russethouse"]spg - in an ideal world I would hope that MPs gained their experience before becoming elected, but quite honestly at the moment it seems pretty unlikely to happen.[/quote]Apologies if I seemed to be targetting you RH, that was not my intention; I was merely trying to express my exasperation at what UK MPs regard as 'work' experience.Sue [Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Don't worry I have every sympathy with that view ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Maybe they should not become MP's until say 35 minimum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.