Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 08:33am on 13 Aug 2009, Nick Vinehill wrote:

  We don't need professional politicians sitting in the House of Commons where their role is largely symbolic, passing futile laws just to uphold a defeated economic and social system. We need voluntary politicians of all abilities where their performance is governed from the heart, where what they do and say isn't governed by cheap parliamentary careerism.
  
  Any issue relating to this MP's expense scandal (particularly if dominated by a particular personality like this latest Alan Duncan nonsense) is solely to detract away from more fundamental defects of the parliamentary system. For example where were the elected MP's when the Bank of England injected further billions of public money into the bailed out economy whilst everyone was on holiday.
  
  Quite simply, MP's will always be on excessive salasries and allowances to ensure that the majority of them don't rock the boat!
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 09:08am on 13 Aug 2009, queen-marjoram wrote:

  I think that public approbation of MPs probably *has* gone too far now - and it's hardly suprising to hear one of them complaining about their pay and conditions.
  
  I don't care how much you earn: if you had extremely vocal criticism from the press and the public constantly in your face for months on end when perhaps you work bloody hard at your job then eventually you'd snap. Who among us doesn't gripe at our working conditions and our customers?
  
  So not only do we expect our MPs to solve all of our problems for us through parliament, we expect to be able to pillory them mercilessly and then to turn the other cheek. It's about time we all grew up about this and accepted that MPs are human too.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 09:44am on 13 Aug 2009, unluckynotstupid wrote:

  If we have more selfless MPs with real-life experience, will that inevitably lead to a socialist bias? Listening to some people's views where "caring", do-gooding public service is the desired background, I suspect this is the case and this is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. These people do not understand efficiency and adding value, they are just black holes sucking in taxpayers' money.
  The UK can only prosper if it is entrepreneurial and innovative and this means capitalism not socialism - we need to have MPs who have real business experience, and integrity - contrary to public opinion these qualities are not mutually exclusive.

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 11:29am on 13 Aug 2009, Tiptext wrote:

  If the point is that you pay peanuts you get monkeys, I am not too sure I agree, IMHO the underlying issue is that MP have become irrelevant, and however much they are paid won’t attract the brightest and best due to a number of factors as per below:
  
  Most legislation is now passed down from Europe
  
  MP’s play the sound bite game combined with never expressing an opinion; therefore the media drives the political agenda.
  
  MP’s have undermined an expectation of self-responsibility, self-respect and self-policing in the individual, by implementing a sausage machine education and endeavouring to take all risk out of people lives. They fill this void by making laws to manage behaviour in minute detail, handing over their political and social leadership to the Media, Police and Judiciary.
  
  They undermine their position as representatives of Britain, by allowing asymmetrical extradition laws with the USA, their inability to engage and drive a European agenda and abrogating more power to regional parliaments.
  
  MP’s have undermined freedom of speech to such an extent that neither they nor the public can have sensible debates on core issues such as race, sexuality, religion and migration. The red top papers now lead the debate by sensationalising and polarising the argument to sell papers.
  
  For me the expenses scandal is a sideshow, as a democracy we need to bring power back to elected representatives to vigorously debate and consider the issues of the day whilst raising expectations of self responsibly in society.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 3:47pm on 13 Aug 2009, andyb_ wrote:

  But they are not excessively paid. Lets face it, who do you want in your cabinet making the decisions, rank and file career politicians who can afford to live on 60-100k a year or someone who has been there and done that?
  
  Lets look at defense. A Leftenant Colonel in the British Army starts at 66K rising to 75k.. A Brigadier starts at 95 and ends at just shy of 100k.. After that, they would easily be snapped up by a defense contractor for much more than that..
  
  Quite frankly, I'd rather someone like this was in charge of decisions about sending our soldiers in harms way than a career politician who can afford to live on 60k a year.
  
  Fraser Nelson annoys me, I wonder how much above the average wage he earns? Would he do his job for 24k a year? Could he afford to? probably not. On his and the rest of the media's point that MP's should earn the average wage...
  
  Do we want Mr Average, someone who hasn't really been very successful in life, negotiating with North Korea about their Nuclear weapons? Or Mr Average deciding what we do with interest rates? Or Mr Average dictating health policy?
  
  No, we want an experienced negotiator, a successful Financier and a top flight GP or surgeon, all of whom will earn way more than 60K in the private sector..
  
  My suggestions would be to reduce the number of individually elected MP's by scaling back the house to having MP's for counties only, each county then has "LMP" (Local MP's) who are employed by the county MP to manage the local wards. So in local elections, you will have a county wide election that people have to vote on based on who the LMP's will be and what the wider agenda for the county and country will be..
  
  Pay the LMP's 25k and allow it to be their second job, the County MP 120K, Ministers the same. And cabinet members, who shouldn't need to be MP's but can be anyone the government wants to work in the job, 250K a year. This will attract the kind of people we actually want doing the top jobs in Government, rather than a career politician who knows the limit to what he can earn..

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 11:13am on 14 Aug 2009, caspar1072 wrote:

  I believe that reducing the number of politicians would have a detremental effect, as it futher reduces the already small influence the individual voter has concerning issues within his local community.
  
  As far as the expenses scandal is concerned, I feel rather sorry for Alan Duncan MP. Asides should not be quoted in the public domain, as opinions discussed in private are often more generalised and not as well thought out.
  
  Finally, as far as attracting the brightest and best goes, the only way to get these people in is to offer a competitive salary. I would rather pay higher taxes for a competent and proven government, however, some of the expenses claims are frankly offensive, I would advise MPs to consider carefully before purchasing another duck house or 'flipping' mortgages in light of recent revelations and largely justified public anger. Let us let the politicians get on with their jobs and hope that these recent experiences will make them reflect before succombing to that deadly sin greed again.

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 04:23am on 15 Aug 2009, Dennis Junior wrote:

  Richard Jackson:
  
  Mr. Duncan's remarks and the language were totally unacceptable and, tehy should have been rejected by the Party Leader...
  
  I am glad, that David Cameron released the statement
  
  =Dennis Junior=

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 04:26am on 15 Aug 2009, Dennis Junior wrote:

  In my comments at 4.23AM...I am not affiliated and/or associated with any political party in the United Kingdom....
  
  =Dennis Junior=

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS