MPs opted to keep their £24,000 second homes allowances.

[Blitzen]

The hole they are digging is getting ever bigger.

Saracen - Great post, hits the spot with every point

What are you on about?
I take it you realise that ALL MP's could vote on this? Its not just a Labour Party thing.

SARACEN
As informative and interesting as your posts normally are, i cannot believe you have gotten your opinions across in this thread so one sidely.

You have gone on about the failings of the Labour Party on your posts in this thread and it has suprised me. We lknow how badly the Labour Party have done in the past but..............someone with your obvious intellect cannot possibly lay this disgraceful behaviour by MP's at the door of Labour. The whole house is responsible for this, whether they vote or not.

Maybe it wasnt intentional, if thats the case (i dont think it was), then it certainly comes across that way.

[Saracen]

SARACEN
As informative and interesting as your posts normally are, i cannot believe you have gotten your opinions across in this thread so one sidely.

You have gone on about the failings of the Labour Party on your posts in this thread and it has suprised me. We lknow how badly the Labour Party have done in the past but..............someone with your obvious intellect cannot possibly lay this disgraceful behaviour by MP's at the door of Labour. The whole house is responsible for this, whether they vote or not.

Maybe it wasnt intentional, if thats the case (i dont think it was), then it certainly comes across that way.

The way you've taken what I said is kind-of what I meant, but kind-of not what I meant.

Are all MPs responsible? Yes and no. It depends what you’re referring to. I break it down into two issues :-

1) Actions in the past, and how they played the system.
2) Actions over reforming the system.

Re: point 1), over a period of time, my view is that MPs of all parties (certainly both Tory and Labour) have been abusing the system, or at least, abusing the spirit of the system even if, largely, within the letter of the rules. In that sense, they're as bad as each other. There have certainly been some egregious examples of playing the system for all it's worth, if not a bit more, and a small number of Tory MPs have been amongst the worst 'offenders'.

Do the Tories have a clean record on expenses? Hell, no. Not by a large margin.

But, and this is why I've lambasted Labour in this thread, we then come to point 2). The publicity over these allowances blew up, and the inquiries into several members activities started, and the decision was made to have a committee look into the whole system with a view to revising it in a way would go at least some way to restoring public opinion that the system wasn't just a gravy train. How have the members of both main parties reacted?

If we look at that attempt to redesign the system, then the picture looks much better for the Tories than Labour. The Tories still don't have an entirely spotless record, but a MUCH better one than Labour.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a list of who'd voted against amending the system. Look at the number of Tory MPs voting against amending it (about 20 or 21), then look at Labour (I haven't counted, but a quick scan suggests 120 or more).

Moreover, from what I'm told, the Tory leadership have been making it clear that they wanted Tory MPs to support revising the system, and the leadership have certainly been making the right noises in public, acknowledging that the whole system is causing major public disgust and distrust, and that it needs to be changed so that the system is MUCH more open, independent and accountable. They’ve been supporting revision.

And what have the Labour leadership done? They had Cabinet ministers voting against the reform that the leadership appeared to want, and enough ministers alone voted against it to swing the vote against reform. Ministers!

If the Labour leaders really wanted reform, as evidenced by Brown's statement about his “disappointment”, then he certainly either didn't put much effort into it (in which case, why not), or he was ignored by large numbers of Labour MPs, and a LOT of ministers (which says what about his leadership?).

In fact, either way, it's a condemnation of Brown as a leader.

Why? Because either he tried and failed, in which case he's ineffective and can't even really control his own ministers, or he didn't try, in which case it's a slap in the face for us public from a Prime Minister that keeps trying to sell the notion that he listens to us, and "gets it". Not judging by this debacle, he doesn't.

So do I lay it entirely at the door of Labour? Yes and no.

That 20-ish Tory MPs that voted to defeat revision of the system? Disgraceful. I hope it costs them their seats at the next election. But they were vastly outnumbered by disgraceful Labour MPs.

An that so many (more than half) failed to even bother to vote is an outrage …. And we have to suspect that it’s a self-serving outrage at that. Of everything that happened, that so many didn’t vote is perhaps the largest outrage of all.

And historically, the abuse of the spirit of the system seems to have been a cross-party sport, with a lot of them “at it” to one extent or another .... though by no means all of them on either side. And I feel sorry for those of whatever party that have acted with restraint and honour.

But, Blitzen, Labour are in government. The Labour party could, if they wanted to and if they were under control and followed their leader's mandate (if he gave it) have forced this revision through regardless of what the Tories, LibDems and every other minor party wanted. Labour has a substantial overall majority. The Tories (and LibDems, etc) can oppose, they can try to mount revolts, they can let off a lot of hot air but at the end of the day, in the face of that simple Labour majority, they can't block ANYTHING a united Labour party wants to do.

So, as the ruling party, and as the party with that substantial majority, yes, I blame Labour.

If Brown actually has control of his party and was prepared to exercise it, like he did for 42 days, then Labour had it in it's power to drive reform through. And they flunked it. We can argue about why they flunked it. We can argue about whether Brown really wanted reform, or whether he didn't really care enough to make an issue of it, or whether he doesn't have the vision or the understanding of the public to know how this rankles us, or whether he didn't have sufficient control to get it past his own MPs, or whether he simply wasn't prepared to spend the political capital necessary to make a stand on this …. like he did on 42 days.

But, one way or another, Labour had the power to change this, and they were the ONLY ones that did. And they blew it.

Have Labour MPs been the only ones with snouts in the trough? Nope, not by a country mile. But they COULD have stopped it, and didn't. And for that, yes, they have to take the blame.

[Russ]

i agree with that last comment Saracen, main reason they were voted in was to stop the tories blatent disregard for the public, selling public services to there rich friends etc. but labour has done little in way of improving this sort of situation

[Steve]

It'll probably be cheaper for us if we get Mugabe in.

[Koolpc]

Labour have gone down hil fast in my book. I won't be voting for them in the next GE.

[Saracen]

Labour have gone down hil fast in my book. I won't be voting for them in the next GE.

Judging by recent evidence, whether it's polls, by-election results, local results or the London mayor, you'll be in a large group of good company in that. Of course, a week is famously a long time in politics, let alone a year and a half if Brown goes to the country when most pundits think he will, which is Spring '10.

Right now, it looks as if a Tory slam dunk is a dead cert, but it might not be by then. And then there's the big question ..... will it make much difference whoever wins?

[Hicks12]

cant believe the cheek of them to keep this and make it sound like they have taken a sacrifce for the public by not having an above payrise. Im not one who looks at politics in the way alot of you do but i listern about it from time to time. I believe we would be better off as a dictorship because in reality, if the person leading is really that bad all you need todo is take one person out and anyways they tend to be clever people, not the dumb ass people we get now. Why can the public vote for a new law or something, surely its our country and by that we should be allowed to decide by a national vote/poll. This democracy is not really that, its a group of people dictating the country instead of 1.

Maybe i should go into politics, might sort the mess out quickly(as alotr of people would), take benefits to lazy bums and lesson the amount given so they its hard to live on it and therefore your forced to work, there our economy is sorted.

[Koolpc]

They are probably all the same. Just Labour have done so badly for the nation.

[Saracen]

cant believe the cheek of them to keep this and make it sound like they have taken a sacrifce for the public by not having an above payrise. Im not one who looks at politics in the way alot of you do but i listern about it from time to time. I believe we would be better off as a dictorship because in reality, if the person leading is really that bad all you need todo is take one person out and anyways they tend to be clever people, not the dumb ass people we get now. Why can the public vote for a new law or something, surely its our country and by that we should be allowed to decide by a national vote/poll. This democracy is not really that, its a group of people dictating the country instead of 1.

Maybe i should go into politics, might sort the mess out quickly(as alotr of people would), take benefits to lazy bums and lesson the amount given so they its hard to live on it and therefore your forced to work, there our economy is sorted.

Dictatorship? Oh, I think not.

Take a close look at Mugabe's antics, and what his regime has done for his country. Or consider PolPot, or Saddam Hussein. Or look back in British history. We used to have dictators .... we called them "kings". Take a good look at how despotic some of their regimes were. Until pretty recently, by which I mean certainly up until Tudor times and even some way beyond, there were kings in Britain where even disagreeing with them in public could get you executed.

Then there's Cromwell. That might have started out with the best of intentions, but it didn't take long to go downhill, did it?

History is riddled with examples of dictators, in this country and abroad, and almost without exception, one thing is clear ..... absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you had a bright, kind and benevolent dictator, with the mind of an Einstein and the soul of Mother Theresa, then great. Maybe. But the problem is, people with that kind of personality don't do the things you need to do to end up as a dictator in the first place.

[Hicks12]

Dictatorship? Oh, I think not.

Take a close look at Mugabe's antics, and what his regime has done for his country. Or consider PolPot, or Saddam Hussein. Or look back in British history. We used to have dictators .... we called them "kings". Take a good look at how despotic some of their regimes were. Until pretty recently, by which I mean certainly up until Tudor times and even some way beyond, there were kings in Britain where even disagreeing with them in public could get you executed.

Then there's Cromwell. That might have started out with the best of intentions, but it didn't take long to go downhill, did it?

History is riddled with examples of dictators, in this country and abroad, and almost without exception, one thing is clear ..... absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you had a bright, kind and benevolent dictator, with the mind of an Einstein and the soul of Mother Theresa, then great. Maybe. But the problem is, people with that kind of personality don't do the things you need to do to end up as a dictator in the first place.

A nice post(as always ) but you have to agree that a dictatorship has its advantages along with cons. The way i see it is we are in a semi dictatorship, alot of people are put in by the higher up and so he/she can normally get the majority and so they always get their way. I know there are alot of bad dictators like mugabe, i dont believe what he is doing is right but our leaders(thats what they are xD) are being ignorant to this, they could take him out in a few days tops that would sort it out right now but no they wont because america isnt and thats why we went to iraq which ruined us, all for oil in my opinion.

How did i get onto wars now?lol. Anyways i just wanted to say it would have to be a good leader and ofc put into practice wouldnt happen, we should have a FULL democracy where the people vote. Also, the queen spent an extra 4million this year or was it last(was in the paper) which is ridculus, how is a queen being paid for? surely she has her own savings.

[badass]

As much as i disagree with the fact that state employees (Members of Parliament) can vote as to whether or not they get a payrise AND how much, there is no denying that most people would do EXACTLY the same thing in their position.

Exactily. The symptom of the problem is the silly expneses they get to claim. The root problem is the fact they get to decide on their pay and expenses. Fix the problem and the symptoms go away. Fix the symptoms and other probelms will occur.
e.g. if they get their expenses cut, what are the odds of them going for another 40% payrise?

[Saracen]

A nice post(as always ) but you have to agree that a dictatorship has its advantages along with cons. The way i see it is we are in a semi dictatorship, alot of people are put in by the higher up and so he/she can normally get the majority and so they always get their way. I know there are alot of bad dictators like mugabe, i dont believe what he is doing is right but our leaders(thats what they are xD) are being ignorant to this, they could take him out in a few days tops that would sort it out right now but no they wont because america isnt and thats why we went to iraq which ruined us, all for oil in my opinion.

Wasn't it Churchill that said something like ..... 'Democracy is the worst known for of government .... except for all the others'?

That's the problem.

There are MANY problems with democracy. Even in it's purest form, where we all have one vote on every issue, and pure majority rule applies. In that scenario, how do you ever get informed decisions on anything. We'd all spend our entire waking life trying to keep up with the measures going through Parliament (or whatever the equivalent was), just trying to understand the issues. I rather suspect that pure democracy would amount to mob rule at worst, and an ill-informed lottery responding more to knee-jerk public reactions that calm, balanced, informed, rational processes.

Would it be an improvement. I doubt it somehow.

On the other end of the spectrum are dictators. A benevolent dictator could do a good job .... if you could find one, and if they stayed benevolent. But I've got to ask you ..... what about the system that implies?

Our old system of kings and queens were effectively inherited dictatorships or ones takem by force of arms. And even the kings that inherited it inherited something obtained by force of arms in the first place. So .... if you have a benevolent dictator, what happens when he or she pops his or her clogs? You've set up a system where it might work if the incumbent is benevolent, but how do you ensure that in a succession? If you set up a dictatorship, you effectively put all the might into the hands of that dictatorship. If it were simply a case of voting him out if we didn't like what he did, the Zimbabwean people would have got rid of Mugabe ages ago, and Iraqi's wouldn't have put up with Saddam. But, that dictator grows a cadre of supporters round him who wield all the power. They run the police force, control the army, generally institute a large secret police force, and so on.

So, you could start out with a benevolent dictator, but once the system is running, it could end up in the hands of a Stalin.

No thanks.

At least with our system, for all it's faults, and God knows it's got some, at least we change change the crop of lunatics that run the asylum every four years.

Besides, without our current crop (and previous, and probably future crops) of "lunatics", I'd loose one of my favourite pastimes ..... bitching about politicians.

To be serious for a moment, in my view there's a lot wrong with our current system, and a fair bit wrong with those running it. While pure democracy (in the one vote for all sense outlined above) sure has problems, we could improve the current system. We need, in my view, a system which is more responsive to public opinion about policy, and direction. There ought to be safeguards, limiting what politicians can do without approval from us. An example would be a written constitution.

For instance, the Irish government currently have a rather annoying problem, and so do the EU, and it's because the Irish constitution requires that issues affecting constitutional changes have to be put to the public. And it seems the public, the silly things, got the answer 'wrong'.



We all know that our government won't give us the chance to express a view on that, and given that they won't, and given polling evidence, we have to assume it's because they think they'd lose. And this is not a partisan point. The same applied to the Tories and Maastricht, for a start.

Of course, there are reasons why referenda aren't always a good idea, too.

But in my opinion, the absence of any influence of government policy beyond a vote every four years is inadequate. We ought to have much more say about general direction in major policy areas, even if we let politicians sort out the detail, and how to implement it into law. And there ought to be hard constraints on giving away our democratic rights, our jurisdiction over our own lives and our constitution that, while being able to be changed, can't be done at the mere whim of whoever is the current government.

So our systems needs more democratic representation, and it needs checks and restraints. But it's a case of improving what we've got, rather than throwing baby out with the bathwater and having a dictator.

Also, the queen spent an extra 4million this year or was it last(was in the paper) which is ridculus, how is a queen being paid for? surely she has her own savings.

Well, I can see that turning into a whole thread of it's own.

The Queen is a very wealthy woman, so should taxpayers be funding her? When you put it like that, clearly not.

But ...... and you knew there'd be a "but" didn't you ..... have you looked into the Crown Estates?

Essentially, a long time ago, the Royal's of the time owned VASTLY more assets, largely property, than they do now. They gave that to the state, in trust, to be administered by the state. It is an asset base worth, currently, about £7 billion. And the Royals gave it to the state ..... in return for some concessions, a large part of which is the funding the Monarch of the time gets from the taxpayer.

The Crown Estates property portfolio is, effectively, held in trust. The revenue from it, and it's substantial, goes to the exchequer. The exchequer then provides the funding the Queen gets from the 'taxpayer', so, effectively, much or all of it is being paid from revenue from assets that she would have owned herself, were it niot for that deal.

So, I suppose the taxpayer could stop funding the Queen, and let her pay for her needs out of the own funds ...... and give her back that £7 billion in assets, together with the revenue they raise.

I haven't crunched the numbers for a good few years, but last time I looked, if you compared revenue with taxpayer funding, the taxpayer was up on the deal. So be careful what you wish for .... you might get it.

Look at it like this. Suppose you had a house, left to you by your ancestors, that you rented out. Would you give it to someone else, in trust, so that they casn administer it and then give you some of the revenue you'd have had from it if you'd kept it yourself .... not to mention the capital appreciation that the trust, and now not you, gets? Yeah, quite.

[Saracen]

Exactily. The symptom of the problem is the silly expneses they get to claim. The root problem is the fact they get to decide on their pay and expenses. Fix the problem and the symptoms go away. Fix the symptoms and other probelms will occur.
e.g. if they get their expenses cut, what are the odds of them going for another 40% payrise?

Quite right.

Expenses ought to be just that - reimbursement of expenses incurred, and moreover, ones necessary to do the job. Providing they're that, and only that, most sensible people wouldn't object to £24k a year, if that's what it cost. We certainly shouldn't expect MPs to fund legitimate expenses out of their own pocket, or we'll have a government where only the wealthy can afford to be in it .... again.

The issue, in my view, isn't that they have expenses or how much it costs. It's that it's perceived by the public as a gravy train, if it either allows ludicrous things that aren't in any way justifiable by the needs of the job (plasma TVs or pergolas come to mind), or if the system is not only properly run and funding proper items, but is seem by us and trusted by us to be so. I have no desire to go back to lawmaking being the exclusive preserve of the landowners, and it's easy to forget that the full adult public have only had the vote at all for what, 100 years or so? And that not much beyond that, it was the exclusive preserve of landowners, and you don't have to go back much beyond that to get to Royal power and a feudal system where "Lord" literally lorded it over us.

Nope legit expenses are fine with me. But they need to be legit, and WE need to trust that.

That's the major issue here - credibility and public trust ..... which I'd guess is close to non-existent on this matter. If anything says that many, many MPs are out of touch, this issue does. With bells on.


The trouble is, the way many MPs are acting, we seem to have swapped one form of despotic ruling class for another one that thinks they're a ruling class.

[Bios]

Is Your MP A Greedy B*****d!

Enter your postcode and find out if your MP voted to keep the opaque, unaccountable Additional Costs Allowance here! You also get a photo so you can see what they look like.

Mine is doing the right thing

link

[MadduckUK]

Is Your MP A Greedy B*****d!

Enter your postcode and find out if your MP voted to keep the opaque, unaccountable Additional Costs Allowance here! You also get a photo so you can see what they look like.

Mine is doing the right thing

link

iv just been putting random postcodes in from items in the office. managed to find a no!

[Moby-Dick]

My Local MP is a non greedy one

Your MP is Mark Lancaster, who voted NO to keeping the £24,000 Additional Costs Allowance for MPs. Good for them

quite glad I voted for him.