This should be on the TV not on YouTube

[corydoras]

 

Cue the usual apologists supporting these trouser stains.

[chesters1]

I cant see anything different about the tories ,MP's are not in power to help people only themselves.

If they are kicked out they know very well they will soon be employed by the very companies that whisper in their ears being in parliament is a small step in the ladder to real power and money . what company is going to stick an unknown fred bloggs with no power on the board knowing they dont have the contacts to whisper to back in their old job in parliament? Even worse many however corrupt they are go onto the lords ,lords look great in the names at the top of company boards.if MP's are giving up lucrative banking and law jobs to become MP's you know full well the trough will be far bigger in parliament or they wouldnt do it 

Cash for questions still goes on but more discretely  now ,it always will!

Some woman on the tv said its because the poor dears dont get paid much! they would (as most on here would) grab a few more bucks whatever they are paid ,you can never have to much money and power ,people want them to be corrupt if they didnt they wouldn't elect them

Edited November 4, 2021 by chesters1

[corydoras]

They should not be permitted "outside interests". They have a job.

[chesters1]

I agree but how would you stop them ?,unlike them we cannot insist we see their bank accounts and even if we could they would simply use offshore accounts or get it in cash .

I would remove the expenses aswell except for fares to particular events they have to do ,fred bloggs the plumber doesnt get them! he cannot claim most of his outgoings or get his moat cleaned on the tax payer !MP's appear to pay nothing out unlike everyone else their wages are untouched whilst most peoples are hardly enough to live on once the bills are paid 

[Ken L]

"A Parliament composed entirely of full-time professional politicians would not serve the best interests of democracy. The House needs if possible to contain Members with a wide range of current experience which can contribute to its expertise."

 - Lord Nolan: Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

 

The party affiliation of those who faced criminal charges following the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal is of course worth considering before making any grand assumptions about who is and isn't sleazy.

[corydoras]

1 hour ago, Ken L said:

"A Parliament composed entirely of full-time professional politicians would not serve the best interests of democracy. The House needs if possible to contain Members with a wide range of current experience which can contribute to its expertise."

 - Lord Nolan: Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

 

The party affiliation of those who faced criminal charges following the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal is of course worth considering before making any grand assumptions about who is and isn't sleazy.

I don't believe Lord Nolan, who elected him to speak for us?

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

[chesters1]

Not the first time Nolan has been involved! Political lobbying is not some new scandal for ANY party

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22754297

 

[Huge_Vitae]

Yes but equally we all should remember that MP’s are subject to violence, threats of violence, stalking and harassment almost on a daily basis.

They are, after all representatives of the population and as such should be made up of a representative, proportionate cross section of the population.

A percentage of the population steal, murder, thieve, defraud and generally treat others as a commodity. It should be accepted that a percentage of representatives will do the same.

Cash for questions (although in this case there is slightly more to it than being reported, hence Owen Paterson’s recent actions) cash for honours and possibly cash for indecent images is nothing new.

There is certainly nothing new in the fact that the (employer’s) voters have limited powers to remove the offender, it should not be up to other MP’s to determine the fate of a member who breaches the trust of the electorate.

If you get away from the media and political crap you might see that there is a case to say that Paterson although in breach of the rules, MIGHT have been justified in doing so and in any case a right to appeal should exist, certainly in a bipartisan system.

Read this link, not in the news much…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58913968

and tell me that the Paterson case is worse.

 

[Ken L]

Fiona Onasanya, Keith Vaz, Nazir Ahmed..

The list of dodgy MPs is long.

[corydoras]

22 hours ago, Huge_Vitae said:

Yes but equally we all should remember that MP’s are subject to violence, threats of violence, stalking and harassment almost on a daily basis.

They are, after all representatives of the population and as such should be made up of a representative, proportionate cross section of the population.

A percentage of the population steal, murder, thieve, defraud and generally treat others as a commodity. It should be accepted that a percentage of representatives will do the same.

Cash for questions (although in this case there is slightly more to it than being reported, hence Owen Paterson’s recent actions) cash for honours and possibly cash for indecent images is nothing new.

There is certainly nothing new in the fact that the (employer’s) voters have limited powers to remove the offender, it should not be up to other MP’s to determine the fate of a member who breaches the trust of the electorate.

If you get away from the media and political crap you might see that there is a case to say that Paterson although in breach of the rules, MIGHT have been justified in doing so and in any case a right to appeal should exist, certainly in a bipartisan system.

Read this link, not in the news much…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58913968

and tell me that the Paterson case is worse.

 

Cue the usual apologists supporting these trouser stains