How to Stop the MP 2nd Mortgage Problem
Comments
-
Made no reference to whether it's fair or not so your wilful assertion is pretty stupid. Please do try to read what people write no matter how hard that is in your world, oh and stop hijacking threads with your own vainglorious agendas but instead respond to Mr Goo's OP.VTech wrote:BillyMansell wrote:
That would be because you haven't made a valid point in relation to the world of politics. Whatever you think may work in your own autistic little world cannot be extrapolated to apply to the whole of society.VTech wrote:BillyMansell wrote:
None more so than you with your simple-minded view of the world which is without any substance in relation to politics and your child-like knowledge of the route to Westminster through grass roots politics.VTech wrote:The amount of people on here who have absolutely no idea about how a country works is astounding.
But to get back on the topic of Mr Goo's thread, why don't they make a block booking with Travelodge, Ibis and the likes at a preferential rate for when parliament is sitting? Bedrooms, wifi, breakfast and an evening meal within the £15 meal allowance which would mean you could also close the very heavily subsidised restaurants within parliament.
Isn't it laughable that as of yet, no one has been able to argue a single point I have made.
As you've adequately proved even a stupid person has at least one person who believes them correct but as has had to be pointed out to you in the past just because you believe something correct doesn't make it so.Again, for the sake of the stupid, please understand that I am not saying this is fare, I am simply explaining it as it is.
So by that very statement you are arguing with me when I say life isn't fare for some ?0 -
So your argument is that we should pay MPs a salary commensurate with similar positions in business, because then we d get a better quality of MP but at the same time, its not the gov s responsibility to "look after people"? what is it then?
An im all right jack attitude, doesn't make for a very nice society, would suggest that we all club together at a community level and repair our own roads? or maybe build and fund our own schools and hospitals?
Or leave the disadvantaged to starve on the streets? all these things and a whole lot more are done by gov to "look after people"
Given that most people vote for a party rather than a individual (outside of single issue stuff or a by election) and that in any case, unpaid party activists select the would be MP, often from criteria handed down by the party in London.... I do not see how this equates with your argument - whole sale change of our electoral system isn't going happen in our life times.
Back to the OP -The only way to stop fraudulent claims is to change MPs TCs to those that most of us work to ie fraud is theft = gross misconduct and means instance dismissal, redress via an expensive employment tribunal.
Putting groups of MPs in one place, would be a very expensive security nightmare and in anycase, building such complexes would be exorbitant wherever it was built.
Interim solution - tax any profits from 2nd mortgage properties at say 90%, I m sure the HRMC could draft some rules if they really wanted to.0 -
mamba80 wrote:So your argument is that we should pay MPs a salary commensurate with similar positions in business, because then we d get a better quality of MP but at the same time, its not the gov s responsibility to "look after people"? what is it then?
An im all right jack attitude, doesn't make for a very nice society, would suggest that we all club together at a community level and repair our own roads? or maybe build and fund our own schools and hospitals?
Or leave the disadvantaged to starve on the streets? all these things and a whole lot more are done by gov to "look after people"
Given that most people vote for a party rather than a individual (outside of single issue stuff or a by election) and that in any case, unpaid party activists select the would be MP, often from criteria handed down by the party in London.... I do not see how this equates with your argument - whole sale change of our electoral system isn't going happen in our life times.
Back to the OP -The only way to stop fraudulent claims is to change MPs TCs to those that most of us work to ie fraud is theft = gross misconduct and means instance dismissal, redress via an expensive employment tribunal.
Putting groups of MPs in one place, would be a very expensive security nightmare and in anycase, building such complexes would be exorbitant wherever it was built.
Interim solution - tax any profits from 2nd mortgage properties at say 90%, I m sure the HRMC could draft some rules if they really wanted to.
I often look on things in a business sense simply because thats 95% of my life. Wether anyone agrees or not isn't the issue, its a valid viewpoint and one that shouldn't be overlooked.
In government you want and need people who won't be looking for a "whats in it for me" position and rather a "what can I do for my constituents" view.
I agree about the claims, if you were in a position within a company and were found to be defrauding you wouldn't be asked to resign, you would be fired. It really is that simple.
My children have just moved to an academy school from a normal primary. This is a perfect example of how things can work when control is paramount and outside influence is limited. The school does not worry about replacing laptops, school books and pencils etc. They have great teachers, its a friendly environment and the kids have a much higher chance of success than within a standard school where the head struggles for any funding for the pupils.
Im happy for people to argue with me forever and a day but it doesn't change the fact that you need to pay the right money to get the right candidate (not in EVERY case but the major majority)Living MY dream.0 -
Make parliament virtual. No London = No 2nd Home = No problem. Boost the UK's image as a technologically advanced country. Increase the MP's time in their constituency. Make them more accountable by gathering statistics of how much time they spend participating in parliamentary debates. Capture everyone's reaction to every word. No more shouting "Order, order". Invest in the UK's broadband network and teleconferencing technology to make it all possible (probably cheaper than all those mortgages). No more daft expenses like the House of Commons wine cellar or the free snuff allowance. It just gets better and better . . .Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
XM-057 rigid 29er0 -
Giraffoto wrote:Make parliament virtual. No London = No 2nd Home = No problem. Boost the UK's image as a technologically advanced country. Increase the MP's time in their constituency. Make them more accountable by gathering statistics of how much time they spend participating in parliamentary debates. Capture everyone's reaction to every word. No more shouting "Order, order". Invest in the UK's broadband network and teleconferencing technology to make it all possible (probably cheaper than all those mortgages). No more daft expenses like the House of Commons wine cellar or the free snuff allowance. It just gets better and better . . .
I know you said some of the above in "jest" but how very true. If what you said was implemented, together with many other things that could in theory be very simply how much money could be saved !
How much more would actually get done !
In this country we spend a large proportion of our money on talking a project through the system whereas countries like singapore just get the job done. It makes me sick looking at the waste but as I said earlier, this forum thread really is a lifelike sample of why things don't work, its such a shame.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:I'm going to be flamed here but before you reply in anger I urge you to read what I have written and then wait for a few minutes for it to sink in.
Pay them more in the first place !
I'll explain.
An MP will earn £66k and when you look at this like a business, the salary is poor considering the position. This opens up the person to doing things that we would not consider "fit"
An equal position in a valuable company would be far higher than £66k and the reason for that is to keep the person totally focused on their position in order to achieve the best results for the company.
After all, you wouldn't want a CEO worrying about something as trivial as their mortgage, therefor taking their eye off the ball for the company.
What I am saying really makes total sense if you look at it at a grass routes level.
We all know why countries like brazil and other South American nations have so much violence and corruption, they pay their law enforcement personnel a pittance and so corruption is ever increasing.
Any member of a board of directors would confirm what I have written when looking for a new head of the company. You simply need their total commitment and to get that you need to remove as much of the outside influences as possible.
In the end you get so much more back that the extra salary is swallowed up many times over in cost savings.
Didn't you post something like this only last week.... "I interview employees and the first question they ask is about salary and how much they will be paid", with your point being that the salary offered was more important than the job role!0 -
junglist_matty wrote:VTech wrote:I'm going to be flamed here but before you reply in anger I urge you to read what I have written and then wait for a few minutes for it to sink in.
Pay them more in the first place !
I'll explain.
An MP will earn £66k and when you look at this like a business, the salary is poor considering the position. This opens up the person to doing things that we would not consider "fit"
An equal position in a valuable company would be far higher than £66k and the reason for that is to keep the person totally focused on their position in order to achieve the best results for the company.
After all, you wouldn't want a CEO worrying about something as trivial as their mortgage, therefor taking their eye off the ball for the company.
What I am saying really makes total sense if you look at it at a grass routes level.
We all know why countries like brazil and other South American nations have so much violence and corruption, they pay their law enforcement personnel a pittance and so corruption is ever increasing.
Any member of a board of directors would confirm what I have written when looking for a new head of the company. You simply need their total commitment and to get that you need to remove as much of the outside influences as possible.
In the end you get so much more back that the extra salary is swallowed up many times over in cost savings.
Didn't you post something like this only last week.... "I interview employees and the first question they ask is about salary and how much they will be paid", with your point being that the salary offered was more important than the job role!
Not them exact words but on the whole yes, I do feel that the wages of a job in many cases is more important than the job. I also think this the main reason why so many people are career unemployed because they either want more money than they can justifiably earn or that they can earn more being unemployed when you count all of the benefits and therefor feel that they needn't work at all.
Of course this isn't the case for all unemployed but the current system has bred this position which is nothing short of criminal.
In this particular case you are asking for someone who can see reason, fight their cause and do so in an articulate way in order to get the most for their people. I just don't think you will on the whole get that for such a small wage and if the right salary was paid less people in these positions would do all they can to "scam" the system.Living MY dream.0 -
nathancom wrote:
Nice sweeping statement: you want your legislature (not government) to be the uniform, to represent the same narrow set of interests, whereas in truth we want a broad range of people for all backgrounds and experiences to *represent* as well as possible the diversity of the British people so that the will of the British people might be manifest in a set of laws that best enable each of us to live our lives as we see fit.Rick Chasey wrote:2) conviction politics is the worst kind of politics. Totally overrated. You want good governors, not good politicians. A politician's political persuasion will colour by what principals they govern, but ultimately the most you can expect from a politician is to govern as well as possible within those principals. If the UK stopped banging on about conviction and started looking at good governance it'd stop lurching from one extreme to the other and failing to sort anything out.
A nation is not a business and we are all equal in the eyes of the law therefore this talk of bringing the hierarchical and undemocratic governance of business into our politics is invidious. Unsurprisingly it is spouted most by our new political class that seeks to entrench its hold on the levers of power, your Cleggs, Mandelsons and Camerons.
I don't see much banging on about conviction politics in the UK but when people criticise it, they are usually attacking politicians who stand up for ordinary people, whichever side of the political divide.
No it's more stuff like Gove or Blair deciding to go to war.
You need to like at why we have a government. It's to govern as effectively as possible.
Democracy is a good way to make sure the majority get a say and it has inherent checks and balances. But it's not the end, only the means.
I worry when I read about policies that are done for political reasons rather than governance reasons. Osbourne's preemptive "election budget" was politically very sound. Breaks for those who turn out to vote and not for those who don't.
That's not in the interest of the nation.
Similarly Blair''s conviction that Iraq had to be invaded was a mistake caused by conviction politics.
I hate it when parties try to get elected by promising specific policies. Circumstances change when governing, compromises need to be made. Let their political creed colour how they will react to problems and issues.
I want people who really try and do what is best for the nation in an open minded way. Not to do what is best for their party to make sure they are still in power. Not to look after their own narrow interests or their own personal fantasy that they are convinced of.
Today we reward being a good political maneuverer more than actually being good at governing and leading. Osbourne IMO is a classic example. He's great at getting into seats of power and looking after party interests, but he's not a capable chancellor.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
Nice sweeping statement: you want your legislature (not government) to be the uniform, to represent the same narrow set of interests, whereas in truth we want a broad range of people for all backgrounds and experiences to *represent* as well as possible the diversity of the British people so that the will of the British people might be manifest in a set of laws that best enable each of us to live our lives as we see fit.Rick Chasey wrote:2) conviction politics is the worst kind of politics. Totally overrated. You want good governors, not good politicians. A politician's political persuasion will colour by what principals they govern, but ultimately the most you can expect from a politician is to govern as well as possible within those principals. If the UK stopped banging on about conviction and started looking at good governance it'd stop lurching from one extreme to the other and failing to sort anything out.
A nation is not a business and we are all equal in the eyes of the law therefore this talk of bringing the hierarchical and undemocratic governance of business into our politics is invidious. Unsurprisingly it is spouted most by our new political class that seeks to entrench its hold on the levers of power, your Cleggs, Mandelsons and Camerons.
I don't see much banging on about conviction politics in the UK but when people criticise it, they are usually attacking politicians who stand up for ordinary people, whichever side of the political divide.
No it's more stuff like Gove or Blair deciding to go to war.
You need to like at why we have a government. It's to govern as effectively as possible.
Democracy is a good way to make sure the majority get a say and it has inherent checks and balances. But it's not the end, only the means.
I worry when I read about policies that are done for political reasons rather than governance reasons. Osbourne's preemptive "election budget" was politically very sound. Breaks for those who turn out to vote and not for those who don't.
That's not in the interest of the nation.
Similarly Blair''s conviction that Iraq had to be invaded was a mistake caused by conviction politics.
I hate it when parties try to get elected by promising specific policies. Circumstances change when governing, compromises need to be made. Let their political creed colour how they will react to problems and issues.
I want people who really try and do what is best for the nation in an open minded way. Not to do what is best for their party to make sure they are still in power. Not to look after their own narrow interests or their own personal fantasy that they are convinced of.
Today we reward being a good political maneuverer more than actually being good at governing and leading. Osbourne IMO is a classic example. He's great at getting into seats of power and looking after party interests, but he's not a capable chancellor.
Im with you all the way.
I really like William Hague, a man who has depth to his views and does what is needed without thinking of himself, probably the reason he didn't become PM.
After re-reading a few of my earlier posts here and the arguments against them I suddenly thought about a vital rule within the UK police force.
You are not allowed to be blacklisted or made bankrupt if your in the police.
I won't go into why because if any of you can't work that out there is no point me making the effort to explain but I go with that approach. You need conviction, the ability to govern without others looking for your "ulterior" motive.Living MY dream.0 -
Vtech - you still haven't answered why a higher salary - how much extra? (given the way would be MPs are selected) would bring about a higher quality of MP.
MEPs earn far more than a uk MP - are they better at governing Europe than our MPs or are they just better at "filling their boots" ? avg income of 182k...good work if you can get it.
the quality of the individual is not governed by what they can or do earn..... just look at footballers for that one.0 -
These are mostly examples of political expediency rather than conviction. Doing something for the sake of getting elected rather than on the basis of a firmly held position.Rick Chasey wrote:nathancom wrote:
Nice sweeping statement: you want your legislature (not government) to be the uniform, to represent the same narrow set of interests, whereas in truth we want a broad range of people for all backgrounds and experiences to *represent* as well as possible the diversity of the British people so that the will of the British people might be manifest in a set of laws that best enable each of us to live our lives as we see fit.Rick Chasey wrote:2) conviction politics is the worst kind of politics. Totally overrated. You want good governors, not good politicians. A politician's political persuasion will colour by what principals they govern, but ultimately the most you can expect from a politician is to govern as well as possible within those principals. If the UK stopped banging on about conviction and started looking at good governance it'd stop lurching from one extreme to the other and failing to sort anything out.
A nation is not a business and we are all equal in the eyes of the law therefore this talk of bringing the hierarchical and undemocratic governance of business into our politics is invidious. Unsurprisingly it is spouted most by our new political class that seeks to entrench its hold on the levers of power, your Cleggs, Mandelsons and Camerons.
I don't see much banging on about conviction politics in the UK but when people criticise it, they are usually attacking politicians who stand up for ordinary people, whichever side of the political divide.
No it's more stuff like Gove or Blair deciding to go to war.
You need to like at why we have a government. It's to govern as effectively as possible.
Democracy is a good way to make sure the majority get a say and it has inherent checks and balances. But it's not the end, only the means.
I worry when I read about policies that are done for political reasons rather than governance reasons. Osbourne's preemptive "election budget" was politically very sound. Breaks for those who turn out to vote and not for those who don't.
That's not in the interest of the nation.
Similarly Blair''s conviction that Iraq had to be invaded was a mistake caused by conviction politics.
I hate it when parties try to get elected by promising specific policies. Circumstances change when governing, compromises need to be made. Let their political creed colour how they will react to problems and issues.
I want people who really try and do what is best for the nation in an open minded way. Not to do what is best for their party to make sure they are still in power. Not to look after their own narrow interests or their own personal fantasy that they are convinced of.
Today we reward being a good political maneuverer more than actually being good at governing and leading. Osbourne IMO is a classic example. He's great at getting into seats of power and looking after party interests, but he's not a capable chancellor.
The outlier is Blair into Iraq and I suspect he thought that removing Saddam was a good idea. Whether it was or not is a whole other thread.
Anyway I think most will agree that acting based on short term political expediency is not what we want to see, though it is part of the pay off from being able to boot out our politicians every 4 years that they will attempt to do things that make them look good.
Where I differ from you is that I do not think there is a single optimal way to run the country that a politician can know simply by training/experience/management skills etc. If there was one optimal way to govern/manage the country then we would have no need for multiple parties as it would be discoverable as a kind of science.
In lieu of this we have political creeds that do rely upon conviction as much as logic for their ideas to be put into practice and every day I would choose a Tony Benn over a Tony Blair, who really epitomises Third Way politics that you appear to be espousing.0 -
Dont forget that MPs have the longest holidays of any job I know. That is worth about 50k.Contador is the Greatest0
-
sorry to bring this thread crashing back to the original point....the issue isnt how to create the most efficient, or even effective, Houses of Parliament. Its how to create the least corrupt one.
I am of the view that all politicians are summarily useless, be they "conviction" politicians or "CEO-esque". I´d frankly just like them to be cheaper and less corrupt.
Virtual parliament must be a way forward. Prosecution, and hanging, for MPs caught with snouts in the trough a better one.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
According to the independent watchdog the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in the outgoing parliament 162 out of 543 MPs had criminal cases pending against them. Of those, 76 MPs faced serious charges including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and robbery. Public pressure recently led to new regulations and now if convicted, MPs are expelled from parliament and barred from contesting elections for six years once they've served their sentence.
Which country?0 -
I would say Kenya but I think the % is too low..Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0
