|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 7, 2013 20:37:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by indofred on Sept 8, 2013 0:30:06 GMT
In my opinion, the wife beating should have been cause enough but politicians seem to think they're bulletproof and can do whatever they like.
Honest politicians are a rare creature.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 8, 2013 8:42:33 GMT
Honest politicians are a rare creature. I'm not sure that they are that rare a creature, just that the hones5t ones don't tend to make so many headlines, because they are just trying to get on with the job, and the nature of politics itself tends to make honest people have to compromise their principles to keep getting elected. I don't pretend to know what the answer to that is, though, except to try to vote for the most honest and principled politicians that are available and hope that they stay that way and try to reform the system. |
|
|
|
Post by Oddquine on Sept 9, 2013 23:15:21 GMT
I'd be keeping MPs honest by giving constituencies the right to recall them if they end up in court, civil or criminal, and are found guilty. If Parliament (and whoever legislates for the Lords,) doesn't have the decency to say that someone who breaks the law after election is not suitable to be an MP (or Lord), somebody has to....but I have to admit, nobody would like the restrictions I'd put on MP suitability before selection, far less after it.
Problem re Walker's selection was that he was never charged, afaik....so any information provided would just have been gossip.....and I suppose you can't make a selection decision on gossip. I'd have refused his selection because he was 69. Am I ageist....amn't I just! I know how much use I'd be at my age..how much I've slowed down both mentally and physically....and he's even older than I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 10, 2013 9:26:39 GMT
I'd be keeping MPs honest by giving constituencies the right to recall them if they end up in court, civil or criminal, and are found guilty. The right of recall is something that needs to be dealt with in UK politics generally. For Westminster it is something that is being worked on, although I think the current proposal is somewhat less than satisfactory. It presumably wouldn't apply to the Scottish Parliament anyway, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Oddquine on Sept 10, 2013 10:11:24 GMT
I dunno...after all we couldn't hold a referendum without permission from Westminster, and their salaries are a percentage of those in Westminster so how much leeway we actually have re the workings of the Scottish Parliament is unknown until we try something and get told NO!
I'd like to see something set out in the Written Constitution in an Independent Scotland as to the conduct of elected representatives...including either the right of recall by constituents or automatic dunting from Parliament if found guilty of any misbehaviour which results in ending up in court...or both. Bad enough that we have so many MPs/MSPs with the intelligence of an amoeba...why accept dishonesty at any level as well. Does our obsession with having a proportionate representation of every race/gender etc in Parliament have to extend to a proportionate representation of the worst of human nature as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 10, 2013 10:16:32 GMT
Does our obsession with having a proportionate representation of every race/gender etc in Parliament have to extend to a proportionate representation of the worst of human nature as well? If it did, I suspect that politics would be failing badly in getting the proportions correct! |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 11, 2013 9:04:11 GMT
Honest politicians are a rare creature. I'm not sure that they are that rare a creature, just that the hones5t ones don't tend to make so many headlines, because they are just trying to get on with the job, and the nature of politics itself tends to make honest people have to compromise their principles to keep getting elected. I don't pretend to know what the answer to that is, though, except to try to vote for the most honest and principled politicians that are available and hope that they stay that way and try to reform the system. I don't agree. Take a look at the house of commons expenses list. Loads of the greedy sods were grabbing whatever they could. The low cost MPs were a rarity. (Indofred - but couldn't access account so re-registered) |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 11, 2013 18:55:45 GMT
There were lots claiming lots, but the rules were wrong, and the implementation of them was ineffective. Some of those claiming were certainly extracting the urine, but others were going to the relevant authorities to ask what they should be claiming, and then being told by them to claim for things that they otherwise would not have thought of claiming for (and then got hauled up in the subsequent investigation for claiming things they shouldn't have done when it was stuff they had been told to claim for). The whole system was a shambles - some were undoubtedly playing it, but others were more being caught out by it in just doing what they were told was correct and usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oddquine on Sept 11, 2013 21:10:06 GMT
There were lots claiming lots, but the rules were wrong, and the implementation of them was ineffective. Some of those claiming were certainly extracting the urine, but others were going to the relevant authorities to ask what they should be claiming, and then being told by them to claim for things that they otherwise would not have thought of claiming for (and then got hauled up in the subsequent investigation for claiming things they shouldn't have done when it was stuff they had been told to claim for). The whole system was a shambles - some were undoubtedly playing it, but others were more being caught out by it in just doing what they were told was correct and usual. But let's be honest..the UK system is a shambles full stop.......not just re the expenses. I'm not daft enough to think that they all sing from the "grab what you can" hymn sheet....Hilary Benn doesn't....but the kinds of things for which they could claim were ridiculous. If an ordinary joe punter working for a company has to work away from home during the week for his job, he gets subsistence for himself...he doesn't get a house paid for (and is able to keep the profits on resale)...and he can't claim stuff like his sodding telly licence and has a limit on what he can spend on food! And MPs only live away from home during the week.just like joe punter. And to add insult to previous injury...our politicians with egos larger than the sun, are getting a pay rise of 11% (we're all in this together......don't make me laugh!) and have been angling for a £20,000 fixed expenses payment they can use as they will. If you want to see how much we lick their bahookies...just read Featherbedding MPs I was particularly struck by the last couple of items 24. We will require additional funding to prepare for and implement measures for the election and this will be reflected in our 2014–15 and 2015–16 Estimates to the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA.
25. Finally, the Committee may wish to note that we will be announcing, later this year, details of the new remuneration package for MPs. This revised package will be implemented from 2015. so more money from us.......and I'll bet more money for them. I wouldn't have a problem with giving MPs bigger salaries if they actually did anything to warrant it...but let's be honest, the vast majority don't. They'd be more effective if we got rid of Westminster altogether, and they worked in their constituencies for the punters.....and kept their voting, cat-calling and playground behaviour to daily telly conferences. There may be some merit in the cabinet being on the ground in London....but I can't see any reason why my MP from Caithness spends most of his time in London, just waiting for a voting opportunity.  |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 12, 2013 17:51:09 GMT
And to add insult to previous injury...our politicians with egos larger than the sun, are getting a pay rise of 11% (we're all in this together......don't make me laugh!) On that particular issue I have some sympathy with them as individuals. They were rightly criticised for many years for setting their own pay, a position they should not have been in, so they brought in a fully independent system over which they had no control to stop that. That system has now decided to give them an increase at a time when it is clearly bad for them and bad for politics generally, but it's now all out of their hands and they can't stop it. They are getting slammed for 'giving themselves a pay rise', but that's not what they have done at all. The flaw is with the system, and it's a simple one. The independent method is obviously the correct one, but it should be recognised within it that MPs are public sector workers paid by the taxpayer, and should therefore be subject to any public sector wage increase limits. In this case, they would have had 1%, like other public sector workers, and that is what they should have got. |
|
|
|
Post by Oddquine on Sept 12, 2013 20:10:02 GMT
And to add insult to previous injury...our politicians with egos larger than the sun, are getting a pay rise of 11% (we're all in this together......don't make me laugh!) On that particular issue I have some sympathy with them as individuals. They were rightly criticised for many years for setting their own pay, a position they should not have been in, so they brought in a fully independent system over which they had no control to stop that. That system has now decided to give them an increase at a time when it is clearly bad for them and bad for politics generally, but it's now all out of their hands and they can't stop it. They are getting slammed for 'giving themselves a pay rise', but that's not what they have done at all. The flaw is with the system, and it's a simple one. The independent method is obviously the correct one, but it should be recognised within it that MPs are public sector workers paid by the taxpayer, and should therefore be subject to any public sector wage increase limits. In this case, they would have had 1%, like other public sector workers, and that is what they should have got. They can refuse to take the 11% though.....which would if nothing else.....show they recognise that people who earn lots will always pay the people for whom they are responsible for deciding the remuneration enough lots just so they feel entitled to earn what they earn for deciding it. They are not getting a salary hike because they are worth it..because if they were CEOs of companies and made as much a hash of a company as they do of the UK, they'd be out on their ear. Afraid I think the UK has become a country of individuals chasing the big buck...and the Government and business, particularly global companies, encourage that frankly selfish attitude which is damaging society in the 4th most unequal society in the world of kicking 200 countries, last time I looked. Also been looking to see if I can find out who the members of IPSA are, but no success so far.......HOWEVER.....how independent is a committee/authority set up by parliament/the cabinet/the PM....really? Are there any ordinary punters like me on it? Or is it made up of the same kind of people who comprise every other committee set up by Parliament.......the boys who don't earn enough, in their opinion. in their day to day jobs. I was interested (and bliddy annoyed) to find during my googling, that someone actually tried to set up an e-petition....which said........Create a committee staffed by members of the public to set MPs salaries and policies because MPs cannot be trusted. This was refused because.....and I quote..... This e-petition has been rejected with the following reason given:
E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes:
party political material
commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication
issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament
correspondence on personal issues
E-petitions cannot be used for freedom of information requests.
The following explanatory notes have been added:
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is already responsible for MPs' salaries. (my bolding) Now maybe I'm a really silly person.....but are they not using the fact that,because there is ALREADY an IPSA.......with members chosen by the Government (and let's not pretend they were not) so theoretically "impartial" <hollow laughter smilie here>, to refuse a petition to enable us, joe punters in the UK, to decide the pay of MPs in consideration of our opinion as to what we think they are really worth in a genuinely open market (which the UK version of democracy is not) ? I'd happily be a member of the committee and even pay my own way to meetings and not be paid to do it. Given they set up the committee themselves (yet another Government quango)...they could very easily change the set-up. But we all know turkeys won't vote for Christmas! And MPs won't have anybody but people who also earn silly money voting on their salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Sept 14, 2013 11:22:59 GMT
It says something about the current political world that the only people with convictions might well be sent to jail! |
|
