Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'm on Nathan's side on this one.   Ben just came across as a total idiot last night on this debate with absolutely no clue about how the other half live.

At one point he said that of about 650 MPs only about 50 had fiddled their expenses....despite huge lists being published to show that this is blatantly not the case.

Nathan was trying to find out why Ben thought MPS deserved more money than similar professions with long and antisocial hours...Ben just kept on saying yes nurses should have more money, without addressing Nathan's point of WHY MPs had so much in the first place, just repeating and repeating absolute bollocks about why his MP friends deserved much more

Well done nathan...i don't blame him for getting exasperated
DanceSettee
I'm not much of a one for the typical tabloid populist knee-jerk crap but given a chance I think Nathan could have had some interesting points...but Ben just shot him down.  I know this may not be popular but I think Nathan may have a brain under there y'know.

Everyone thinks he's thick coz of the accent and swearing...but I think I'd like to hear more from him.
Leccy
Reference:
but I think Nathan may have a brain under there y'know.
I agree ..................but unfortunately because he doesn't speak in a 'posh' accent it is ignored. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr .......................Ben is one pompus twat .........I think I'm on a one woman mission to get him evicted. The crowd certainly knew what they were doing when they booed him on the way in.
Soozy Woo
Reference DanceSettee Today at 22:15:
I'm on Nathan's side on this one. Ben just came across as a total idiot last night on this debate with absolutely no clue about how the other half live.
TBH, I thought both of them made good and bad points. One of the things Ben had to defend (which wasn't shown on the HLs) was the need for MPs to have two homes: one in their constituency and one in London. I would have thought this was obvious, but the other HMs weren't buying it. How do they think an MP from, say, Scotland is meant to manage? If you say "Well, the cost of a London flat can come out of their wages.", then how would that be fair when they earn the same as, say, a Kent MP who can commute? There has to be some sort of allowance or compensation somewhere - the issue is really about making it fair and transparent...
Eugene's Lair
Reference:
One of things Ben had to defend (which wasn't shown on the HLs) was the need for MPs to have two homes: one in their constituency and one in London.
True, I didn't see that...so if Ben said that on the live feed then I agree with him.  An MP from Scotland or the north just can't commute, that would be ridiculous.

But I also agreed with Nathan about how some MPs are out of touch with the electorate and that the public were really really hacked off with the expense scandal.

Wish I'd seen the whole thing now, sounds like an interesting chat.
Leccy
Reference Leccy Today at 23:58:
 But I also agreed with Nathan about how some MPs are out of touch with the electorate and that the public were really really hacked off with the expense scandal.
Like I said: good and bad points from both.

The most remarkable thing for me was that I actually found myself agreeing with Ife at one point, when she suggested that the expenses scandal had resulted in the public tarring all politicians - good and bad - "with the same brush".
Eugene's Lair
Reference jacksonb Today at 00:11:
mp's do not need to have 2 homes, they need one home and a london office or crash pad. even a barracks type of arrangement would do.
Well, technically they have an office in the Houses of Parliament, but that's not always practical as the building wasn't designed for so many MPs.

As for a "crash pad" or barracks: well, it might have to be a bit more substantial, as the MPs would need it 5 days a week and they are, as Ben pointed out, meant to be representing the country. Otherwise - yes,  why not: but isn't that still technically a 2nd home? It still has to be funded, meals paid for, etc. Either the taxpayer pays for that accommodation direct, or else you'd still need some sort of compensation for MPs who live outside the commuter belt...
Eugene's Lair
Last edited by Eugene's Lair
Reference jacksonb Today at 00:22:
i'll have t google the attendance records of the house, i'm pretty sure most mp's aren't there a whole lot unless a tight vote is going on.
Isn't that rather the point, though? They're frequently having to go back-and-forth between London and their constituencies. And even if they're not actually in Parliament, there are other duties in London, and their party HQs are based there.
Eugene's Lair
Reference jacksonb Today at 00:20:
 well it's only a week, many workers have long spells away and don't get the benefits mp's do.
I would expect anyone required to work away from home for long stretches to get reasonable expenses. This was the main point MPs made during the expenses scandal: any other employee in that situation would get expenses, so why shouldn't they? As I said earlier, the issue IMO is how you do that in a fair and transparent manner.
Eugene's Lair
out of 650  mp's i find it hard to name one(not that i know them all) that does the job as a vocation, mo mowlem i think  is one name that comes easily to mind.

i reckon the majority of them are in it for gain and the contacts they make, tony blair , for example, they seem to lose their way and  become grasping and unprincipled, shame really. 

nurses and doctors,  get to sleep in  little crash rooms, when doing overnights.
jacksonb

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×