Comments on: MPs expenses (again)

By: Arleen

Arleen — Sun, 10 May 2009 08:02:10 +0000

Disappointed that you haven’t updated this subject, as it has blown up like a powder keg since then. I’m trying to get someone somewhere to apologise. I as a member of the public are sickened, disgusted and incensed by this whole thing, I am a 71 yr old pensioner on a pension of £95 pw, rather than take hand outs I work, as a cleaner, my yearly wage is sweetie money to you people, oh, and I pay tax to let the accused shower of parasites and thieves live a life of luxury, the lot should be sacked and only those who haven’t milked the system be held on to till their whole contribution has been analized, and then trawl through the list of people who have been awarded medals for heroic deeds, or even the cast of East Enders would be a better choice

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:57:37 +0000

I’m a bit late on this one, but I’d go further than closing the MPs’ pension scheme to new entrants. In common with many private sector employers, I’d close it to further accrual by existing members. My employer did this 18 months ago, largely as a result of accounting regulations introduced by this Government. They can keep what they have already “earned” up to, say, the next election, either linked to salary or index-linked, but not building up further years of service. Beyond that, they can pay into (yes, pay into – enough of this non-contributory nonsense unless it’s accompanied by a salary exchange) a money purchase/defined contribution scheme like the rest of us.

By: Duyfken

Duyfken — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:37:34 +0000

It is reported today (Wednesday, 26th March) that Mr McNulty is to be investigated over his expenses claims.

The DT says: “Sir Christopher Kelly, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said it would begin later this year but not report until after the next general election, expected in 2010.”

What sort of justice is this? Why so long? Could not such a matter be dealt with in a matter of days or weeks? How long does it take to verify the facts – surely not over 12 months? Where is the sense or urgency as one might expect in dealing with such a serious matter? The delay is bad for all concerned, not least for the central figure who has the matter hanging over his head.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

By: jt

jt — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:52:47 +0000

good suggestions.
additionally.

abolish the lords
replace with an elected chamber
proportional rep
and from a party list
200 representatives
5 year fixed terms
no more than 2 terms for each member
save money – more democratic – allows specialists – provide check and balance

By: Colin Holland

Colin Holland — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:34:22 +0000

John – “Why is it that no other MP can see that all/some of these suggestions are simply commonsense?”

Common sense is not common.

MP’s have vested interests and believe they are free agents, whereas we know that too many of them have their loyalties to the party first, themselves second, their families third, and the country a long way down. As for the public, they have to be endured and their opinions ignored until even the MP’s deafness is broken, usually through the media.

Personally I believe the party political system is very near to its “not fit for purpose” stage.
We need an upper council of some 12-20 wise people who can adjudicate (with outside expertise) to a lower council of some 100 apolitical elected regional leaders, within a system whereby parties (but not strategic issue alliances) are banned.
Problem is that the country is not ready for this, and the current political parties are definately not.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:53:00 +0000

Make Parliament sit until 10 pm on a Wednesday as well as on Monday and Tuesday, to give more time to examine important issues

My MP only attends parliament for 3 days a week anyway. Like any other worker, they should be required to attend for a minimum number of hours per week.

And I notice you don’t mention the quite unbelievable level of holidays either.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:15:57 +0000

Law of unintended consequences: Get rid of Gentleman’s Clubs and, Bingo! – you get MPs swindling their housing allowance!

What worries me most in our host’s blog today, is the remark about Alan Duncan. Splashed across the front page of the Mail was “£40,000 pay increase” for all MPs. Alan Duncan was quoted inside on page 6, but he certainly did not mention this number.
Then again, yesterday our host mentioned that there was a good deal of media interest in Mr Clarke saying about the 45% tax increase.

What is shocking is the way that the Press and BBC seem to be making up the news as they go along. It is ceasing to bear any relation to the truth. And this is new.

When Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair deliberately started off the spin machine in 1997, they limited Press Releases to papers which said nice things about the government. This included the previously fair Murdoch Press. Only the Mail and Telegraph continued to print what they thought was the truth.

That is why it is terribly sad to see the Mail fall into the trap of inventing News.
Especially when more and more people are getting their News off the internet.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:07:07 +0000

The problem is surely whether you look up at the EU or down at the electors.
Where I live, £20-£30,000 is a good wage, especially for the immigrants who are my friends. Janusz, a trained electrician who is learning English, with a pregnant wife and ten year old daughter, has to work in a food processing factory. It is going to be tough for him.
On “Deal or no Deal” today, a man was fighting for the “life changing” sum of £50,000 – much less than Mr McNulty applied for and got.
Catherine Ashton, who in October 2008 replaced Lord Mandelson as EU Commissioner receives £1,000,000 on her retirement in the summer, as does each of the other Commissioners.

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:06:09 +0000

John
Nice to see some commonsense and practical suggestions, with which I heartily agree, especially the block of flats which I mentioned last week as a solution!!!!!!!

The block of flats would need to be secure for very sensible reasons (a lot of MPs in one place risk) and so Lola’s Miss Whiplash should find it difficult to enter, unless of course she is signed in.

Why is it that no other MP can see that all/some of these suggestions are simply commonsense.

Do you think you will be asked for your views when the review takes place in 6 months time.

Reply: This blog piece is my contribution to the Review. The proposal to have fewer MPs, and to change the MPs pension arrangements are both Conservative party policy.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:23 +0000

And how about introducing a secret ballot for each vote too?
That way the party system would be wrecked. The Whips might well suggest what the vote should be but they would have no way of enforcing it.
MPs with some sort of conscience would be freed up to vote as they felt right. They might even turn up for debates and listen to the arguments. Pairing, of course, would be stopped too because you wouldn’t be able to trust your pair.
At a stroke, the dictatorship of the Party leader would be snapped.
Parliament might then be what it ought to be: a place where cases are put, listened to, considered and then decided upon.
At the moment, you are right: it is crying out for reform.