Oh grow up, Nathan.
And did you see him talking about nursing like a dog with a bone? Despite Ben agreeing with him, Nathan just HAD to run with it, in the most patronizing way I may add, repeating himself over and over again. Nathan, he was agreeing with you. Brain. Use. Think. Grasp.
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If he did, he would have had to step down from his soap box.
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
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
when they told ben that he was out of touch ,he said' they only get 60k..''
and without eve seeing the irony...
and without eve seeing the irony...
They probably end up wearing polyester shirts, and such like!
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.
Everyone thinks he's thick coz of the accent and swearing...but I think I'd like to hear more from him.
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.
That was the first conversation of Nathan's that I've understood.
I think he made some good points and showed Ben's ideology up, even more.
However, he is a kitchen fascist, so I still dislike him.
I think he made some good points and showed Ben's ideology up, even more.
However, he is a kitchen fascist, so I still dislike him.
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...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.
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".
Reference:
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".
Another really good point, and from Ife no less
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.
even a barracks type of arrangement would do.
Reference:
mp's do not need to have 2 homes, they need one home and a london office or crash pad.
Well yeah a crash pad I'd agree with, I think many do...I know my local MP does...but Miliband the elder has a loooovely house in South Shields.. But they can't commute and that is a good point.Reference: jackson
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.
Even if they have kids and spend all week in London? Reference:
Even if they have kids and spend all week in London?
That would be more for front-benchers though wouldn't it?A single back-bench MP only needs a place to sleep really...
Anyway I didn't see it so I dunno why I'm trying to have an opinion on this convo
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...
well it's only a week, many workers have long spells away and don't get the benefits mp's do.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Blair was a lawyer, jackson.
I'm not sure he went into politics for the money!
I'm not sure he went into politics for the money!
Reference Blizzie Today at 00:36:
Blair was a lawyer, jackson. I'm not sure he went into politics for the money!
Don't forget that even when PM, he was famously earning less than his wife...
lol, he has earnt millions since leaving office, as have many others, it's a shoe in to wealth.
Blair went wrong, lost his way and...well loads of other stuff, you could write a book (and many have ) I think he started off with the right intentions though.
Reference:
I think he started off with the right intentions though.
i do too, thats why its depressing.Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
335 online (7 members
/
328 guests),
0 chatting