O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Andy_Faber]

Justifying something by saying ‘there are no clean hands in politics’ doesn’t help. It just encourages them. The point surely is...Swales’ ‘diamond’.

I wasn't justifying it, just suggesting its more widespread than suggested in earlier posts. The temptation just seems too great for politicians of many 'leanings' and for that matter many nationalities.

[ramAnag]

I wasn't justifying it, just suggesting its more widespread than suggested in earlier posts. The temptation just seems too great for politicians of many 'leanings' and for that matter many nationalities.

Sorry...’justifying’ was the wrong word, but your resigned acceptance doesn’t help.
We need, as a society, to stand against such ‘sleaze’ imo, and unfortunately, if there is a party political point to be made here, it is that, in this country, the party of Government for the last eleven years happens to be the biggest culprit.

[Trickytreesreds]

I actually concur.
MP's shouldn't have other roles. It is a conflict of interests. Like a copper being allowed to consult in a casino etc.
It encourages bad doings and Politicians being what they are, it's too tempting.
None of them are inncocent. The crime just changes in scale.
It is always for cash advantages or personal gain with them.
Just been reading about Blairs secret deal, to stab Gibraltar in the back, to up his EU street cred.

Where COVID is concerned, look no futher than SERCO. That company has ****ed up more contracts and caused outrage all over. Yet still gets government business. Something stinks,

[Geoff Parkstone]

Digging out a diamond from the dross of Swale's post, this is the answer. But I doubt its on any party's 'to do list', I've said before there are no clean hands in politics as history relates.

In theory I agree that MP's should not be conflicted but there are practical limitations. The biggest one, and this is more a blue issue than red (although since the advent of new labour this has substantially levelled out), being that MP's have previous careers that they will have interests in before standing for office.

Often success in those careers underlie there acceptability to the parties, and, when elected, a past career, say, in healthcare would be a good backgrounder in being allocated responsibility for those areas.

So how do you achieve this distancing and avoidance of conflict? If you ban conflicting situations totally you aren't going to get many people volunteering to be MPs. Most MP's get comparatively low pay compared to their responsibility - a basic MP earns around 80k - a basic london tube driver earns 70-80k. The PM is on 160k.

So lets say you triple their wages to accomodate the loss of ability to sell their services elsewhere - and to compensate for loss of career when they get booted out of office 5 years later.

The of course there is the question of different conflicts. Should an MP have to resign his position on a trade union executive because of potential conflict? What about unpaid directorships of companies or charities? Its a huge can of worms

[ramAnag]

Well there’a a thing. AF and Tricky agree with Swale, I agree with Tricky over SERCO and even GP cottons on...albeit only ‘in theory’.
See what we can do when we try.

[Trickytreesreds]

In theory I agree that MP's should not be conflicted but there are practical limitations. The biggest one, and this is more a blue issue than red (although since the advent of new labour this has substantially levelled out), being that MP's have previous careers that they will have interests in before standing for office.

Often success in those careers underlie there acceptability to the parties, and, when elected, a past career, say, in healthcare would be a good backgrounder in being allocated responsibility for those areas.

So how do you achieve this distancing and avoidance of conflict? If you ban conflicting situations totally you aren't going to get many people volunteering to be MPs. Most MP's get comparatively low pay compared to their responsibility - a basic MP earns around 80k - a basic london tube driver earns 70-80k. The PM is on 160k.

So lets say you triple their wages to accomodate the loss of ability to sell their services elsewhere - and to compensate for loss of career when they get booted out of office 5 years later.

The of course there is the question of different conflicts. Should an MP have to resign his position on a trade union executive because of potential conflict? What about unpaid directorships of companies or charities? Its a huge can of worms

Personally GP, whether it is doubled/trebled I don't know. Folks forget the amount of expenses this lot claim as well.
It makes their wages look chicken feed. They basically don't spend their salaries. (never forget the Kit Kat receipt)

But something has to change. If you can't accept the handcuffs, then don't do the job, it's not for you.

[ramAnag]

In theory I agree that MP's should not be conflicted but there are practical limitations. The biggest one, and this is more a blue issue than red (although since the advent of new labour this has substantially levelled out), being that MP's have previous careers that they will have interests in before standing for office.

Often success in those careers underlie there acceptability to the parties, and, when elected, a past career, say, in healthcare would be a good backgrounder in being allocated responsibility for those areas.

So how do you achieve this distancing and avoidance of conflict? If you ban conflicting situations totally you aren't going to get many people volunteering to be MPs. Most MP's get comparatively low pay compared to their responsibility - a basic MP earns around 80k - a basic london tube driver earns 70-80k. The PM is on 160k.

So lets say you triple their wages to accomodate the loss of ability to sell their services elsewhere - and to compensate for loss of career when they get booted out of office 5 years later.

The of course there is the question of different conflicts. Should an MP have to resign his position on a trade union executive because of potential conflict? What about unpaid directorships of companies or charities? Its a huge can of worms

‘You aren’t going too get many people volunteering to be MP’s’. Two points there...competing for an £80k - plus expenses - salary hardly constitutes ‘volunteering’...and at the moment we’re fairly obviously not getting the right quality of people to be MP’s so something needs to change.

I’m not sure you’d use this argument elsewhere...the police aren’t paid very much so it’s understandable that some of them
are ‘bent’ for instance?

Maybe if such a significant number of our MP’s (by no means all I accept) weren’t motivated by power, greed, narcissism and even longer holidays than teachers () we might get the MP’s we need rather than deserve.

[Andy_Faber]

competing for an £80k - plus expenses - salary hardly constitutes ‘volunteering’...

Would you opt into a job at 80k where you had a 1 in 600 chance of facing a mad **** with a blade?

IMO those who choose to cheat would still cheat whether an MP or not, and most of those who choose to be honest would not become cheats by being an MP. God knows why the uncorrupted ones stick it out to be honest

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry...’justifying’ was the wrong word, but your resigned acceptance doesn’t help.
We need, as a society, to stand against such ‘sleaze’ imo, and unfortunately, if there is a party political point to be made here, it is that, in this country, the party of Government for the last eleven years happens to be the biggest culprit.

Resigned acceptance isn't quite how I'd describe it, but I've seen many fingers in many tills over the years in business and a lot of those fingers belong to members of the society you refer to, we've had the discussion here before and I've had it many times in the real world

[MadAmster]

olks forget the amount of expenses this lot claim as well.

There is the odd one that cheats on expenses, absolutely/ However, rather than look at "how much" they claim in expenses, why not look at "what it is spent on"?

Their annual expenses and a chart showing what it went on can be found at https://www.mps expenses.info/ (Thank you swear monitor - leave out the gap between mps and expenses) You go to the site, type in an MPs name and, voila, there's the info.

I give this info several times a year to folk posting on internet platforms/fora that xxxxxx the MP for Blabla North has claimed £147000 in expenses this year. At first sight it looks like the MP might be milking the system. Look at the figures and what the money has been used for and the vast majority of it will have gone on......

Rent for 2 offices. One in the constituency and one in London. Quite understandable and, IMO, acceptable.
Rent for a place to stay in London if their constituency isn't within a reasonable commute. Quite understandable and, IMO, acceptable.
Pay for staff in the 2 offices. Quite understandable and, IMO, acceptable.
Office supplies, gas, electric, water, rates etc for the 2 offices. Quite understandable and, IMO, acceptable.
Travelling expenses relevant to their work as an MP. Quite understandable and, IMO, acceptable.

Look at the facts and you will find that there is little to no "cheating" in expenses and that the vast majority of the claims are reasonable and justified.

Those that do claim for things they shouldn't ought to be removed from Parliament and by-election called in which they are no longer allowed to take part. They should also get charged with fraud.