"Hung Parliment"
Comments
-
Pross wrote:guilliano wrote:I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time
That may be my tactic - can you imagine the message it would send if there were more spoiled papers in a constituency than valid votes?
add up the non voters and spoiled papers and there's probably not far off that happening across the country already and has been happening for a good few elections now.,
Sadly that message is deliberately obscured and mis-represented in a collusion between politics and media that not voting/spoiling papers is down to apathy & crackpots - not decent people wanting to vote but having nowhere to put their cross because they're thoroughly disillusioned, sickened or simply disenfranchised by the system or seeing their party lurch away from its traditional base (both tory and labour diving for the middle) and not speaking for them anymore.
Which is why there will never be a "none of the above" option on ballot papers, Politicians know that it would win a landslide majority forcing them to change their cosy club rules until they learned how to appeal to the people not their own party hierachy and backers.
@ Frank the Tank soup and porridge parties - great for the 30 odd % that actually want 5 years of soup or porridge but everyone gets thoroughly sick of the same flavour rammed down their throat every single day.
some of the best recipes and most wonderful flavours come from skillfully combining ingredients to make the sum better than the individual parts, and often a tiny bit of seasoning is just what a recipe needs to make it complete.
I'm coming round rapidly to the idea that a hung parliament might be the shot across the bows that these shower of disengaged career politicians who regard us all as an inconvenience to their cosy little games need as they'll have to take account of the peoples voice and opinions in making their allegiances to get the job done knowing that if they continue as they have done with an interchangeable 2 party hegemony, ignoring the will of the people they could very quickly find themselves shoved out of alliances and at the mercy of the electorate a lot sooner than each 5 years and with a lot less certainty of any credible influence afterwards.
yes PR allows knobs like Griffin a chance of a seat or two but at the end of the day only because people in this country feel strongly enough about that to vote that way and to have 1st past the post allow that to be ignored and written off without a second thought is dangerous, these sort of nasty and self indulgent parties need to be given the wider platform on which to make themselves look stupid and ridiculously self interested or small nation to show people that they aren't the way to register their dislllusionment that the Tories have gone soft on foreign affairs or Labour have become too enthralled with capitalism or whatever.
SNP and Plaid Cymru never have to admit that they want it both ways as things stand - we want nothing to do with you English but keep sending the cheques. If they get the oxygen of a hung parliament they'll have to come clean which could well force a backlash of a complete divorce that would financially cripple both countries if they did manage to enforce minority interest policies onto the majority country or they'd have to moderate their jingoism to keep getting paid.0 -
Domhnall Dearg wrote:
Sending a message to the politcal clique is why there should be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper. I suspect that it would win practically every seat.guilliano wrote:
I actually want to cast a spoilt paper as to be honest I just don't feel MPs represent the people they are meant to anymore. They all represent their party rather than their community and yet they all come begging for your vote saying they will fight for you at election time
That may be my tactic - can you imagine the message it would send if there were more spoiled papers in a constituency than valid votes?
Only if you then make voting mandatory.The trees lie about the wind...
www.wirralseafishing.co.uk0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Cressers wrote:A sign spotted yesterday attached to a Chichester litter bin (New Park Road)
"A hung parliament- now there's a thought!"
I don't know if it's still there or has been removed by the jobsworths.
Hanged, not hung...
http://www.englishrules.com/writing/200 ... r-hung.php
Hung means they're all well endowed, which I don't think many people mean.
Would that really apply in this case as we are talking about Parliament as a thing not as people. Also "hung" is being used in the present tense refering to Parliament being in suspension, "hanged" would only be appropriate in a past tense.
Feel free to re-correct me, it's just my take on things and I have not real proof to support my argument.0 -
Ollieda wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Cressers wrote:A sign spotted yesterday attached to a Chichester litter bin (New Park Road)
"A hung parliament- now there's a thought!"
I don't know if it's still there or has been removed by the jobsworths.
Hanged, not hung...
http://www.englishrules.com/writing/200 ... r-hung.php
Hung means they're all well endowed, which I don't think many people mean.
Would that really apply in this case as we are talking about Parliament as a thing not as people. Also "hung" is being used in the present tense refering to Parliament being in suspension, "hanged" would only be appropriate in a past tense.
Feel free to re-correct me, it's just my take on things and I have not real proof to support my argument.
"I would like parliament to be hanged" < Noose
"Parliament is hung" < tricky coalition
"I would like parliament to be hung" < eithe i want a tricky coalition or I want parliament to be well endowed.0 -
Therefore hung would be the correct one to use in this situation.0
-
-
Right, sorry. I thought you were trying to suggest that the phrase "Hung Parliament" itself was incorrect, and that the media were saying it all wrong......although the media do quite often get things wrong!0
-
-
shouldbeinbed wrote:Sadly that message is deliberately obscured and mis-represented in a collusion between politics and media that not voting/spoiling papers is down to apathy & crackpots - not decent people wanting to vote but having nowhere to put their cross because they're thoroughly disillusioned, sickened or simply disenfranchised by the system or seeing their party lurch away from its traditional base (both tory and labour diving for the middle) and not speaking for them anymore.
The reason the Tories and Labour moved away from their traditional bases is that there aren't enough people who would actually vote for their traditional values alone to let them get enough seats to get into government because the reality is most people in the country do not share those views. There is simply no way a power-hungry politician is going to walk away from votes like that unless they know they can get more votes elsewhere.
Now, maybe the country is really split in two or three with hard-line Tories and hard-line Labourites left unhappy that their aren't enough of "their kind" to allow their party to be more pure and true. There certainly isn't a mass of people who all are looking for the same non-existent party to vote for and not finding it. Some of the non-voters want a more hard line Tory party, other a more socialist Labour party, the rest want the Lib Dems but think it would be a wasted vote.
The Tories could split, form a hard-line party and a more moderate party and let them negotiate the compromises on both sides to form a coalition government later (and the same applies to Labour) or the parties could do that negotiation internally in private and just call themselves the Conservatives (or Labour) It makes little difference really.0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:, the rest want the Lib Dems but think it would be a wasted vote.
.
In this particular election a Lib Dem vote is by no means wasted. Every vote Lib Dems get gives them more of a mandate for electoral reform, especially if they beat Labour in the popular vote, which is more likely than not right now.0 -
I think that the 'dangers' of a hung parliament are being massively over-hyped by the incumbents who have everything to lose should one occur.
The scenario most often used to scare people: you can't get any decisions made unless you make concessions to the minority interest party lucky enough to hold the balance of power. But that assumes that all of the largest parties are diametrically opposed to each other all the time......
It seems to me much more likely that after an initial period of settling down, there would be a period of alliance and concensus-forming, followed by legislation which had to be much more carefully crafted to satisfy a wider range of stakeholders.
While I'm sure that this would initially lead to slower decision making, I'm also fairly optimistic that it would eventually lead to better decision making. And our current system is manifestly unfair. Like them or not, LibDems are scandalously under-represented in parliament at the moment. And even if we do start to see representatives of minority parties gaining seats, what's wrong with (eg) the greens having a bit of a say in what's going on?
I have at least one thing to thank Mr Cameron for in this campaign. His tirade against the LibDems 'holding the country to ransom on electoral reform' was the thing which finally decided which way I was going to vote. Because to me there's just as much of an argument which says that he is holding the country to ransom to prevent an electoral reform which would actually level the playing field which has been so badly tilted in favour of Labour and the Conservatives for as long as I've been alive.
My personal interest (keeping my take-home pay as high as possible) says I should vote Tory. My sense of fair play (maximum investment in public services even if it costs me more) says I should vote Labour (as, in fact, I usually do). But this time round I've voted Lib Dem because I think a hung parliament might actually be a possibility this time round, and because I think a hung parliament would lead to a fairer electoral system and a more representative and democratic government in future.....0 -
rhext wrote:I think that the 'dangers' of a hung parliament are being massively over-hyped by the incumbents who have everything to lose should one occur.
The scenario most often used to scare people: you can't get any decisions made unless you make concessions to the minority interest party lucky enough to hold the balance of power. But that assumes that all of the largest parties are diametrically opposed to each other all the time......
It seems to me much more likely that after an initial period of settling down, there would be a period of alliance and concensus-forming, followed by legislation which had to be much more carefully crafted to satisfy a wider range of stakeholders.
While I'm sure that this would initially lead to slower decision making, I'm also fairly optimistic that it would eventually lead to better decision making.
.....
Taks a look at what happens in Scotland. One week the SNP are making concessions to labour, the next it's Conservative/LDP. Politicians of any party will vote in favour of specific legislation one week and against it the next.
What happens is that you get a mish-mash of legislation which doesn't support any particular politial view or idiology. You end up with design by committee rather than clear direction.
A hung parliament will only work where there is either true consensus politics (which we don't have in the UK) or in the case of a coalition (which is the Lib/Dems best chance of holding any kind of power) where one party is given total control of a particular political area.
Bob0 -
beverick wrote:
Taks a look at what happens in Scotland. One week the SNP are making concessions to labour, the next it's Conservative/LDP. Politicians of any party will vote in favour of specific legislation one week and against it the next.
What happens is that you get a mish-mash of legislation which doesn't support any particular politial view or idiology. You end up with design by committee rather than clear direction.
Given that the country doesn't have a clear ideological direction either, being a broad mix of left, right and middle voters , how can that be a bad thing? Some Tory policies that don't offend the others too much get through, same with Labour and Lib Dem ones, That has to be better than 30% getting their policies while the representatives of the other 70% of voters sit in opposition.
Anyway, I thought part of the problem was having too much silly legislation getting passed, having it rejected amid a committee approach sounds great to me.0 -
beverick wrote:
Taks a look at what happens in Scotland. One week the SNP are making concessions to labour, the next it's Conservative/LDP. Politicians of any party will vote in favour of specific legislation one week and against it the next.
What happens is that you get a mish-mash of legislation which doesn't support any particular politial view or idiology. You end up with design by committee rather than clear direction.
A hung parliament will only work where there is either true consensus politics (which we don't have in the UK) or in the case of a coalition (which is the Lib/Dems best chance of holding any kind of power) where one party is given total control of a particular political area.
Bob
I don't necessarily see that as a problem though. When you say 'making concessions' it sounds like the outcome is worse than it might otherwise have been. But if (for example) the government of the day were forced to 'make concessions' to the green party when passing a transport bill we might actually get a better piece of legislation as a result.
And to me there has never been a time when the risk of a hung parliament allowing tiny minority parties to hold the government to ransom has been lower. If it were Tories and Labour on roughly the same seats with (say) BNP holding a 10-seat balance of power we'd be in deep trouble. But what seems to me to be most likely this time is that any balance of power will be held by the Lib Dems. They'll loosely align with whichever of the other parties offers them electoral reform, and then may well pick and choose to support legislation from both the traditional sides of the house. And I really can't see how that would be a bad thing.
Despite what people would like to believe, it seems to me that most good-quality decision making comes from balancing a range of different views. History is cluttered with examples of leaders who offered (indeed enforced) clear direction, but didn't necessarily take us anywhere we would really have chosen to go!0 -
Frank the tank wrote:First past the post system
If the soup party get the most seats we all get soup.
If the porridge party get the most seats we all get porridge.
If the triffle party get the most seats we all get triffle.
In a hung parliament you get a dodgy recipie that nobody wants.
Yeah but what if we have a curry party, a chips party and a cold beer party?0 -
rhext wrote:beverick wrote:
Taks a look at what happens in Scotland. One week the SNP are making concessions to labour, the next it's Conservative/LDP. Politicians of any party will vote in favour of specific legislation one week and against it the next.
What happens is that you get a mish-mash of legislation which doesn't support any particular politial view or idiology. You end up with design by committee rather than clear direction.
A hung parliament will only work where there is either true consensus politics (which we don't have in the UK) or in the case of a coalition (which is the Lib/Dems best chance of holding any kind of power) where one party is given total control of a particular political area.
Bob
I don't necessarily see that as a problem though. When you say 'making concessions' it sounds like the outcome is worse than it might otherwise have been. But if (for example) the government of the day were forced to 'make concessions' to the green party when passing a transport bill we might actually get a better piece of legislation as a result.
And to me there has never been a time when the risk of a hung parliament allowing tiny minority parties to hold the government to ransom has been lower. If it were Tories and Labour on roughly the same seats with (say) BNP holding a 10-seat balance of power we'd be in deep trouble. But what seems to me to be most likely this time is that any balance of power will be held by the Lib Dems. They'll loosely align with whichever of the other parties offers them electoral reform, and then may well pick and choose to support legislation from both the traditional sides of the house. And I really can't see how that would be a bad thing.
Despite what people would like to believe, it seems to me that most good-quality decision making comes from balancing a range of different views. History is cluttered with examples of leaders who offered (indeed enforced) clear direction, but didn't necessarily take us anywhere we would really have chosen to go!
I agree that there's little chance of the minority parties holding power this time but the danger is that either of the main opposition parties (and I still think that Labour could be the government) will support the government on different policies at different times and for differing ends. For example, in the case you cite you could end up with the Greens supporting the Labour NI increase if there was, for example, a 15ppl increase in fuel duty and the following week the Conservatives supporting Labour's spending cuts if there was a 25ppl decrease in duty.
Basically, it'd be a mess, just as it was in 1974 and 1996.
Bob0 -
But doesn't that kind of assume that the libdems just sit on the sidelines and let chaos reign?
I think all of this stuff about the sky falling in should we have a hung parliament is similar to the doom we were all going to suffer when we signed up for the convention of human rights and the minimum wage: a massive smokescreen flung up by people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
If there is a hung parliament and that leads to electoral reform then the days of Labour and the Tories being able to assume that one of them will govern comfortably while the other opposes comfortably, and every ten years or so they get to swap sides, will be over. They'll have to fight harder for their seats, and they'll have to work much much harder at obtaining a decent concensus for legislation. Of course it'll take time for a workable system to emerge, but I reckon that's a price worth paying.0 -
rhext wrote:
My sense of fair play (maximum investment in public services even if it costs me more) says I should vote Labour (as, in fact, I usually do). ..
I was agreeing with you for much of your post until here.
The whole "public sector spending is inherently good" worldview is daft beyond belief.0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:Sadly that message is deliberately obscured and mis-represented in a collusion between politics and media that not voting/spoiling papers is down to apathy & crackpots - not decent people wanting to vote but having nowhere to put their cross because they're thoroughly disillusioned, sickened or simply disenfranchised by the system or seeing their party lurch away from its traditional base (both tory and labour diving for the middle) and not speaking for them anymore.
The reason the Tories and Labour moved away from their traditional bases is that there aren't enough people who would actually vote for their traditional values alone to let them get enough seats to get into government because the reality is most people in the country do not share those views. There is simply no way a power-hungry politician is going to walk away from votes like that unless they know they can get more votes elsewhere.
Yes, I get this bit, though I'm not sure I agree 100% with your logic - I agree that a more informed and sophisticated electorate can see that naked socialism or naked conservatism are not the answer and that there aren't nearly as many people now that do hold that view, but more than that, I think that they took their core support absolutely for granted, assuming that (e.g.) the northern mill towns would always vote Labour and the leafy home counties and shires would always be Tory so they felt safe to swing inwards seeking to pick off enough of the Liberal vote and the ditherers from one another to make a decisive difference.
Unfortunately this arrogant assumption that a dog turd with the right coloured rosette stuck into it would still be elected in 80% of the country has proved increasingly false as they've become evermore remote from the electorate, professional politicians who are totally party focussed and ultimately so far removed from the country that the expenses scandal and outright corruption appears normal to them and they don't understand why we were so angry about it.
Their assumption of blind loyalty and its aftermath has left a lot of erstwhile voters at the further ends of their relative spectrum who can't or won't move so far inwards with their party and who are now either consigned as apathetic if they simply don't vote anymore or crackpot (and worse) if they spoil their ballot or transfer their allegiances to UKIP/BNP/Socialist Labour Party, when in reality they are none of these things.
Along with a lot of the rest of the more moderate traditional support thinking 'well if we can have new labour and touchy feely conservatism then I don't need to stick with one ideology either' allowing many many more people to become swing voters or slip into the LibDem camp as they see their party suddenly trying to occupy that same middle ground. Thus perpetuating the mish mash in the middle as they focus more on winning these people back knowing that they're a bigger number and more open to persuasion than the implaccable hardliners.
I've had a few chats with the Labour canvassers round here and they're all saying that same thing, 'No it's not 'my' party anymore, its not the labour party that I grew up with but I'm still supporting it'. They admit themselves that they've heard a lot of that on the doorsteps too by people now undecidied or not intending to bother.0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:Eau Rouge wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:Sadly that message is deliberately obscured and mis-represented in a collusion between politics and media that not voting/spoiling papers is down to apathy & crackpots - not decent people wanting to vote but having nowhere to put their cross because they're thoroughly disillusioned, sickened or simply disenfranchised by the system or seeing their party lurch away from its traditional base (both tory and labour diving for the middle) and not speaking for them anymore.
The reason the Tories and Labour moved away from their traditional bases is that there aren't enough people who would actually vote for their traditional values alone to let them get enough seats to get into government because the reality is most people in the country do not share those views. There is simply no way a power-hungry politician is going to walk away from votes like that unless they know they can get more votes elsewhere.
Yes, I get this bit, though I'm not sure I agree 100% with your logic - I agree that a more informed and sophisticated electorate can see that naked socialism or naked conservatism are not the answer and that there aren't nearly as many people now that do hold that view, but more than that, I think that they took their core support absolutely for granted, assuming that (e.g.) the northern mill towns would always vote Labour and the leafy home counties and shires would always be Tory so they felt safe to swing inwards seeking to pick off enough of the Liberal vote and the ditherers from one another to make a decisive difference.
Unfortunately this arrogant assumption that a dog turd with the right coloured rosette stuck into it would still be elected in 80% of the country has proved increasingly false as they've become evermore remote from the electorate, professional politicians who are totally party focussed and ultimately so far removed from the country that the expenses scandal and outright corruption appears normal to them and they don't understand why we were so angry about it.
Their assumption of blind loyalty and its aftermath has left a lot of erstwhile voters at the further ends of their relative spectrum who can't or won't move so far inwards with their party and who are now either consigned as apathetic if they simply don't vote anymore or crackpot (and worse) if they spoil their ballot or transfer their allegiances to UKIP/BNP/Socialist Labour Party, when in reality they are none of these things.
Along with a lot of the rest of the more moderate traditional support thinking 'well if we can have new labour and touchy feely conservatism then I don't need to stick with one ideology either' allowing many many more people to become swing voters or slip into the LibDem camp as they see their party suddenly trying to occupy that same middle ground.
I've had a few chats with the Labour canvassers round here and they're all saying that same thing, 'No it's not 'my' party anymore, its not the labour party that I grew up with but I'm still supporting it'. They admit themselves that they've heard a lot of that on the doorsteps too by people now undecidied or not intending to bother.
Although I agree generally on the expenses scandal, it's worth remembering that it was still a smalish minority of MPs who were caught with their trousers down.
MPs have lots of faults of course but they aren't as bad as the lazy pub bore would have you believe.0 -
yes the corruption was less than the scandal for sure but the whole system that even honestly accounted that allowed for such huge claims is more where I was going with that by talking about corruption (IMO - profiteering on houses, claiming for non existent items etc) as well as the expenses scandal as 2 seperate entities
apologies if its not as clear as I intended.
its the whole cultural attitude of them towards what seems to have moved from legitimate split life expenses to something of a massive perk to be exploited inside some rather lax rules and mild scrutiny, to even think to claim for the odd kit kat or bath plug or toilet roll is beyond the thinking of parctically any other profession, whether allowable or not.0 -
yeah, i don't disagree. i recall having these debates when i was much closer to it and could see the trouble coming.
MPs have been appalling compromised on housing. One reason the bubble was allowed to bring down the economy ...0 -
wildmoustache wrote:rhext wrote:
My sense of fair play (maximum investment in public services even if it costs me more) says I should vote Labour (as, in fact, I usually do). ..
I was agreeing with you for much of your post until here.
The whole "public sector spending is inherently good" worldview is daft beyond belief.
"Daft beyond belief"..........the thing is though that I can still remember what things were like before labour got in and started investing.
I find this whole 'we can spend less than the other mob but still provide better services' argument the thing which is daft beyond belief. In committing to eliminate waste, we're being invited to believe that the Tories are better managers than Labour. But the management of the services remains with the same people regardless of who's in government. The Tories don't have a magic approach to eliminate inefficiency and waste any more than Labour do. So they'll have to resort to what leaders of any other large organisation do when faced with a need to reduce costs: they'll cut department budgets, tell the managers responsible that under no circumstances must 'front line' services (whatever they are) be impacted, and then keep their fingers crossed that it's a while before people notice any deterioration. The cynic in me says they'll abolish a load of targets at the same time so that nobody notices when service initially starts to drop off.
I don't believe that public sector spending should be unconstrained. But I do believe that the benefit we get from our public services is loosely proprotional to the money which goes into them (within reason). To me this pretty much divides UK politics into two camps: vote Tory, pay a bit less and accept a gradual decline in public services (that's my overriding memory of the last Tory government) vs vote Labour, pay a bit more and see a gradual improvement in public services. The Lib Dems are a bit of an unknown quantity for me.......maybe we'll find out soon.0 -
rhext wrote:wildmoustache wrote:rhext wrote:
My sense of fair play (maximum investment in public services even if it costs me more) says I should vote Labour (as, in fact, I usually do). ..
I was agreeing with you for much of your post until here.
The whole "public sector spending is inherently good" worldview is daft beyond belief.
"Daft beyond belief"..........the thing is though that I can still remember what things were like before labour got in and started investing.
I find this whole 'we can spend less than the other mob but still provide better services' argument the thing which is daft beyond belief. In committing to eliminate waste, we're being invited to believe that the Tories are better managers than Labour. But the management of the services remains with the same people regardless of who's in government. The Tories don't have a magic approach to eliminate inefficiency and waste any more than Labour do. So they'll have to resort to what leaders of any other large organisation do when faced with a need to reduce costs: they'll cut department budgets, tell the managers responsible that under no circumstances must 'front line' services (whatever they are) be impacted, and then keep their fingers crossed that it's a while before people notice any deterioration. The cynic in me says they'll abolish a load of targets at the same time so that nobody notices when service initially starts to drop off.
I don't believe that public sector spending should be unconstrained. But I do believe that the benefit we get from our public services is loosely proprotional to the money which goes into them (within reason). To me this pretty much divides UK politics into two camps: vote Tory, pay a bit less and accept a gradual decline in public services (that's my overriding memory of the last Tory government) vs vote Labour, pay a bit more and see a gradual improvement in public services. The Lib Dems are a bit of an unknown quantity for me.......maybe we'll find out soon.
The bills are growing though. It's not a liitte bit more ... the deficit is big ... add in pension liabilities (state and public sector) and PFI off balance sheet liabilities and you're looking at something that unless it's checked seriously risks shafting UK economic growth.
Europe is going to have to work hard in the coming decades to compete and the UK hasn't positioned itself well to do this.0 -
Whoever gets in is going to have to make some big cuts. And to be honest, cutting budgets after a period of investment in order to drive out the inefficiencies introduced alongside the service improvements is probably no bad thinig either.
But my argument is about my own position: would I rather pay a little more tax in return for a little less pressure on public services? In general yes I would. Everyone's going to cut, I just think that Labour/LibDems will be a little less draconian about it.
And given the state of the public finances, can someone explain to me what drugs Mr Cameron is on promising an inheritance tax cut, because I want some too!0 -
rhext wrote:Whoever gets in is going to have to make some big cuts. And to be honest, cutting budgets after a period of investment in order to drive out the inefficiencies introduced alongside the service improvements is probably no bad thinig either.
But my argument is about my own position: would I rather pay a little more tax in return for a little less pressure on public services? In general yes I would. Everyone's going to cut, I just think that Labour/LibDems will be a little less draconian about it.
And given the state of the public finances, can someone explain to me what drugs Mr Cameron is on promising an inheritance tax cut, because I want some too!
fair point on inheritance tax. For whatever reason it resonated at the time but is daft.
the point I'm trying to get across is this ... yes most public services have improved under Labout but at a huge cost, much of which we haven't paid for yet. It's wrong to think it's just a bit more tax - basically what we've been doing is totally unsustainable. So we now have to go into drastic cut AND tax increase mode. probably for a decade or more. not nice, and it could have been largely avoided if they were more careful.
I just don't agree with, for example, GPs being paid an average of £107k pa. That is not counted as "waste" but is hugely expensive.0 -
I just don't agree with, for example, GPs being paid an average of £107k pa. That is not counted as "waste" but is hugely expensive.
I see you have bought into the government smear campaign. This value is not their take home but what it costs the health authority and is much inline with most professionals, an engineer will cost his company about that per year once you take in overheads and considerably cheaper than some such as criminal lawyers and politicians. If you looked at the standard MP's expenses it exceeded this before you added their salary and they still get time to do side jobs that earn them even more0
