Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Far too complicated and intrusive.
Just make it taxable income.
(Actually I'd rather just abolish it and roll it up into the annual state pension, but whatever)
Well, I’m a fairly comfortably-off pensioner; not rich by any means but I pay around a grand in tax per year. I would have no objection to having my winter fuel allowance included in my taxable income and while it was nice when I didn’t have to pay the TV licence fee any more I wouldn’t object to that being included in my coding. I use my bus pass quite a lot and if there was a charge of (say) £10 for renewing it, I’d have no objection but I can see the consequent administration problems with both collection and exemptions for those who aren’t as well off. Same with prescription charges.
Actually Cameron’s shameless attempts at buying my vote make me even less inclined to vote Tory. Not that that was at all likely, anyway!
It was Brown and Labour who introduced bus passes and then shamelessly extended them to cover the whole country, not just your own LA.
'researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"),'
In the 13 years you were an MP how many times did you vote against the whips?
I do not think that is the point of what Mr Palmer is saying. I think he is suggesting that is what the public think they 'ought' to be doing. Plus he used the word 'blindly'. An MP may well have an interest and spend time pursuing that with a view to speaking responsibly on it. An MP in a car manufacturing area might well be more than happy to promote that industry. An MP working hard to get re elected of course is not necessarily the same as an MP working in the national interest if he ignores wider issues and/or votes for narrow selfish local issues at the expense of a justified wider picture.
Whatever the precise rules on lobbying are then an MP should follow them. If they are allowed to be paid they should disclose it.
'Oh jeez, its seems Cameron has said he will continue to protect all the pensioner bribes that Gordo gave out...bloody free TV licenses should be the first to go.'
Hopefully he'll pass the cost of the free TV licenses to the BBC..
What we actually have is the telegraph busy covering up its own 'cover up the story in return for adverts scandal'. Allegedly.
What must please and comfort us all is the proper professional way the media go about these things by providing full unedited transcripts of what was actually said. :-)
I have to say I despise this sort of journalism whether it's channel 4 stitching up a few politicians or one of Murdoch's rubbish journals doing a kiss and tell. Why we don't have laws against agent provocateurs I don't know.
You think people should be stopped from kiss and tells? Presumably you'd be on the side of the 'family man' politician who likes everyone to know how much he loves his wife getting an injunction against his mistress revealing a very different story. French-style privacy laws?
I wrote yesterday that an MP who I know said he was helping a constituent with a problem when this constituent said the trouble with MP's is you never get to see them to which he replied "I'm sitting here in your kitchen!"
After I read this mornings expose it occurred to me....I wonder how many Tory MP's would visit a constituent living in a tenement block to help them with a problem? Being an MP seems to be whatever you want it to be
It's simply an result of under paying MPs. You can't have a decent lifestyle in the south east on 69k. For a lot of mps, it's a part time job, esp if you have an affluent electorate. Of course they are going to try and get paid elsewhere. I don't see much wrong with anything reported in the telegraph
Plus expenses. That's about 3 times the median salary.
I do not see what expenses have to do with it. Outside of London MPs have to live and work in their constituencies and travel significant distances to Westminster and stay there for part of the time. There original home might be somewhere totally different again. Shock horror it costs money to run a democracy. Ignoring the previous scandals, there should be no current profit in an expense.
As for 'free time' if you are a Scottish or Welsh MP then you receive significant pay and expenses for doing the square root of bugger all. Most of what an MP might be responsible for is carried out by the devolved parliament. There is absolutely no point berating a Welsh MP for the state of the Welsh NHS.
'researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"),'
In the 13 years you were an MP how many times did you vote against the whips?
I do not think that is the point of what Mr Palmer is saying. I think he is suggesting that is what the public think they 'ought' to be doing. Plus he used the word 'blindly'. An MP may well have an interest and spend time pursuing that with a view to speaking responsibly on it. An MP in a car manufacturing area might well be more than happy to promote that industry. An MP working hard to get re elected of course is not necessarily the same as an MP working in the national interest if he ignores wider issues and/or votes for narrow selfish local issues at the expense of a justified wider picture.
Whatever the precise rules on lobbying are then an MP should follow them. If they are allowed to be paid they should disclose it.
Yes, that's right. The answer to John_zims is 35 times, but in practice the point isn't really how often you vote against legislation but how often you influence it. If you don't research a Bill the choice comes down to supporting your party and hoping they've got it right and opposing them because you don't like the general drift of the Bill. Not only the whips but Ministers will regard uninformed opposition with scarely-concealed contempt - the majority goes down from 34 to 32 or whatever, but so what. However, if you say you don't like clause 75 and think it will have undesirable effects, you will get a hearing and have a reasonable shot at getting it altered. To do that, you need to know what you're talking about.
But there are maybe 20 things to vote on every week. Do you have time to study them all? Not really. Do you have so much time that you can do loads of other jobs? No.
I'm not against all outside work. But as Flightpath suggests it's better if it interacts in some positive way by informing your Parliamentary work.
'researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"),'
In the 13 years you were an MP how many times did you vote against the whips?
...
Yes, that's right. The answer to John_zims is 35 times, but in practice the point isn't really how often you vote against legislation but how often you influence it. If you don't research a Bill the choice comes down to supporting your party and hoping they've got it right and opposing them because you don't like the general drift of the Bill. Not only the whips but Ministers will regard uninformed opposition with scarely-concealed contempt - the majority goes down from 34 to 32 or whatever, but so what. However, if you say you don't like clause 75 and think it will have undesirable effects, you will get a hearing and have a reasonable shot at getting it altered. To do that, you need to know what you're talking about.
But there are maybe 20 things to vote on every week. Do you have time to study them all? Not really. Do you have so much time that you can do loads of other jobs? No.
I'm not against all outside work. But as Flightpath suggests it's better if it interacts in some positive way by informing your Parliamentary work.
And often to learn or understand you will speak to people who are in effect lobbyists. An MP gets paid, or should get paid, not for what he does 9 - 5 but for his judgement. That judgement can come from different angles (which is where I use my judgemnt in voting), but leaving aside political differences , the point about government is that for the most part there are often no clear right or wrong choices, only choices.
Comments
Whatever the precise rules on lobbying are then an MP should follow them. If they are allowed to be paid they should disclose it.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 32 (-), Con 32 (+1), LD 9 (-), UKIP 15 (-2), Others 12 (-). Tables here http://popu.lu/sVI230215
Allegedly.
What must please and comfort us all is the proper professional way the media go about these things by providing full unedited transcripts of what was actually said. :-)
http://www.ukip.org/people_key
What's more, in contrast to the Conservatives, they appointed him in full knowledge of the sleaze.
After I read this mornings expose it occurred to me....I wonder how many Tory MP's would visit a constituent living in a tenement block to help them with a problem? Being an MP seems to be whatever you want it to be
Outside of London MPs have to live and work in their constituencies and travel significant distances to Westminster and stay there for part of the time. There original home might be somewhere totally different again. Shock horror it costs money to run a democracy. Ignoring the previous scandals, there should be no current profit in an expense.
As for 'free time' if you are a Scottish or Welsh MP then you receive significant pay and expenses for doing the square root of bugger all. Most of what an MP might be responsible for is carried out by the devolved parliament. There is absolutely no point berating a Welsh MP for the state of the Welsh NHS.
But there are maybe 20 things to vote on every week. Do you have time to study them all? Not really. Do you have so much time that you can do loads of other jobs? No.
I'm not against all outside work. But as Flightpath suggests it's better if it interacts in some positive way by informing your Parliamentary work.
That judgement can come from different angles (which is where I use my judgemnt in voting), but leaving aside political differences , the point about government is that for the most part there are often no clear right or wrong choices, only choices.