General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

Are you saying MP's should retrospectively enforce any new policies on themselves. Should they repay any child benefit they've received over the years? Should they repay any extra fuel duty that's been added to flights for all their previous holidays? Similarly, for the increase in VAT rate, should they claim back the extra 2.5% they've paid?

I agree that there was some massive piss taking with expenses, but I agree with the principle of expenses - if they have to get to Westminister, they should get that back, if Danny Alexander has to stay over, rather than fly back to Scotland, then yes, he should have accommodation paid for. The idea of that is in most businesses / public sector depts. Just needs to be policed properly and it wasn't.

Of all the arguments against this - that was a cheap one.

To some degree yes. Obviously you've taken this to extremes, but the MPs should be forced to feel the negative impact of policies they make. Public sector pay rises being the biggest example.

Expenses is fine, the actual principle of them is right, but it rankles when they take the piss both with policies that fuck those that are struggling, and then claim huge expenses to quite extreme degrees.

And yes, it is cheap, but it's designed to highlight the idea that MPs are out of touch, and have little empathy or understanding with those they represent.

[eFestivals]

If I ruled the world, i'd link MPs pay to a national average, where that national average not only included the pay of the working, but also included what others have to live on thru benefits and the like.

This would mean that MPs could only see their pay increase if they raised the income of all of the society they're meant to be acting on behalf of.

AND ... I'd hugely downgrade MPs pay, to somewhere around the £50k mark (and then linked to that national average forever more), on the basis of the free market principles that they love to apply to the rest of us but not themselves or their cronies.

I'd also limit them to 2 terms as an MP, with a 3rd term for those who make minister. I'd have 25% of seats up for re-election each and every year (never having general elections), so that things couldn't be manipulated for electoral advantage to the same extent as now, and i'd have a PR system for the lower house, and an upper house consisting of no one who'd earned over twice the national average wage, with anyone who'd stood for other electoral office at any point in their lives excluded from it.

Oh, and no jobs for the boys after life as an MP. Anyone going back to a different job role to be banged up for corruption, as they'd be corruptly trading off their political contacts.

[gary1979666]

To some degree yes. Obviously you've taken this to extremes, but the MPs should be forced to feel the negative impact of policies they make. Public sector pay rises being the biggest example.

Expenses is fine, the actual principle of them is right, but it rankles when they take the piss both with policies that fuck those that are struggling, and then claim huge expenses to quite extreme degrees.

And yes, it is cheap, but it's designed to highlight the idea that MPs are out of touch, and have little empathy or understanding with those they represent.

it would make a big difference to policies if they did.

Did you know that the only* indoor workplace where smoking is still permitted is in the Houses of Parliament, for example?

(* prisons also used to be included, but I believe that's now ended due to pressure from the union [who amusingly were the ones who got that exemption in the first place, not wanting rioting prisoners to deal with]).

I'm not actually suggesting that because they allow smoking for themselves at work that it should be allowed elsewhere, but it's a good example of how they make laws to apply to others but not themselves.

The things they done quite recently that have hugely angered me is forced below-inflation pay rises on all of the public sector - except MPs.

And they've given themselves a huge pension top up to their already-hugely generous pension scheme, whilst they've forced the rest of the public sector to downgrade their own pension benefits.

I agree with Mark and Neil in a lot of this. The point I was arguing against was retrospectively asking them to pay tuition fees. With expenses, I'm not sure it's being out of touch (they are, but not for that) - it's about lack of policing of the expenses. They got away with it once for something small, so they try something bigger,... Where I've worked I've implemented expense policy recview and checks and unless you;'re seen to check things, people will try all sorts.

The laws in the present should not exempt them. I am really shocked by the smoking law.

[gary1979666]

If I ruled the world, i'd link MPs pay to a national average, where that national average not only included the pay of the working, but also included what others have to live on thru benefits and the like.

This would mean that MPs could only see their pay increase if they raised the income of all of the society they're meant to be acting on behalf of.

AND ... I'd hugely downgrade MPs pay, to somewhere around the £50k mark (and then linked to that national average forever more), on the basis of the free market principles that they love to apply to the rest of us but not themselves or their cronies.

I'd also limit them to 2 terms as an MP, with a 3rd term for those who make minister. I'd have 25% of seats up for re-election each and every year (never having general elections), so that things couldn't be manipulated for electoral advantage to the same extent as now, and i'd have a PR system for the lower house, and an upper house consisting of no one who'd earned over twice the national average wage, with anyone who'd stood for other electoral office at any point in their lives excluded from it.

Oh, and no jobs for the boys after life as an MP. Anyone going back to a different job role to be banged up for corruption, as they'd be corruptly trading off their political contacts.

It's an interesting idea on the 25% seats up for re-election each year. Do you think that would increase or decrease election hype? With ninety odd days to go, we';ve got a lame parlaiment now - would this mean we have a similar thing every year rather that every 4? Would it mean more disruption generally having the need for annual reshuffles / new governments / etc?

Not sure if I'm against this or not - keen to know your thoughts.

[eFestivals]

The laws in the present should not exempt them. I am really shocked by the smoking law.

And yet things like that - laws and policies that apply to everyone but themselves - is their normal operating manner.

[eFestivals]

It's an interesting idea on the 25% seats up for re-election each year. Do you think that would increase or decrease election hype? With ninety odd days to go, we';ve got a lame parlaiment now - would this mean we have a similar thing every year rather that every 4? Would it mean more disruption generally having the need for annual reshuffles / new governments / etc?

Not sure if I'm against this or not - keen to know your thoughts.

well, I guess we don't get to see how it works until it's in place. I'm not aware of any country that does similar, tho perhaps somewhere does.

But if govts were to spend a quarter or more of each year campaigning and not governing, I'm not so sure they'd be getting votes.

I personally think it would both smooth the political process by having politicians being more aware of the public's feelings and needing to react to it - but without being able to connive things so that everything looks rosy for a few months every 5 years - as well as engage the electorate with the political process more than happens now.

[kaosmark2]

I agree with Mark and Neil in a lot of this. The point I was arguing against was retrospectively asking them to pay tuition fees. With expenses, I'm not sure it's being out of touch (they are, but not for that) - it's about lack of policing of the expenses. They got away with it once for something small, so they try something bigger,... Where I've worked I've implemented expense policy recview and checks and unless you;'re seen to check things, people will try all sorts.

The laws in the present should not exempt them. I am really shocked by the smoking law.

I don't actually think it's a workable policy, it was more just an example of the idea that laws that they pass should apply to them, and if it's an extreme case of hitting a group which they're a part of, why shouldn't they feel some of that?

Expenses is a combination of poor policing and an internal culture of self-entitlement. The media and politicians are quick to swipe at the "entitlement culture" of benefits, yet claim vastly more themselves despite being better off. People take issue with others having a sense of entitlement, yet their idea of "justifiable" is a core example of being out of touch.

[gary1979666]

I don't actually think it's a workable policy, it was more just an example of the idea that laws that they pass should apply to them, and if it's an extreme case of hitting a group which they're a part of, why shouldn't they feel some of that?

Yes they should feel the pain as much as the next man (as we're all in it together - hey hey), but the way I read your post, was that you wanted them to feel the exact same pain of this particular policy - or did I read it wrong?

[TheGayTent]

MPs don't smoke inside the houses of parliament.

I'm not sure if it's still true as the person I used to visit has now left us, but you used to be able to smoke indoors in nursing homes.

Edited February 4, 2015 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

Yes they should feel the pain as much as the next man (as we're all in it together - hey hey), but the way I read your post, was that you wanted them to feel the exact same pain of this particular policy - or did I read it wrong?

It was more an ideological comment, or the idea that they should do it as a statement given their lines about "all in this together", rather than a practical exact pain.

[viberunner]

the SNP didn't abstain.

But don't let that stop you creating another false SNP myth, will you?

Do you have a citation or source for that?

[eFestivals]

MPs don't smoke inside the houses of parliament.

perhaps things have changed there too now, then.

It's certainly the case that the anti-smoking laws had two notable exceptions - prisons (where the fear of riots was a genuine concern), and the H.o.Parliament.

I know the prisons one has been or is currently being reversed, at the request of the Prison Officers Association (who'd asked for the original exemption t0o protect their members).

So perhaps the unions got at the HoP too.

Edited February 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Nope, I believe in law they still can, but they don't.

[eFestivals]

Do you have a citation or source for that?

Do you have a citation or source for your original claim? You certainly don't have a good source, because your original claim is not true.

The SNP voted against the £3k fees, they didn't abstain.

And I know for certain that someone of your capabilities will be able to track down a source for my claim for yourself.

PS: the SNP did recently abstain from a vote against the bedroom tax, tho. It's almost like they want the govt in Westminster to be horrible to Scotland, but that couldn't be right, could it?

Edited February 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Where did my post go? Bloody phone

[eFestivals]

Where did my post go? Bloody phone

it's there (I think), squeezed between two of mine.

Bloody eyes?

[gary1979666]

Do you have a citation or source for your original claim? You certainly don't have a good source, because your original claim is not true.

The SNP voted against the £3k fees, they didn't abstain.

And I know for certain that someone of your capabilities will be able to track down a source for my claim for yourself.

PS: the SNP did recently abstain from a vote against the bedroom tax, tho. It's almost like they want the govt in Westminster to be horrible to Scotland, but that couldn't be right, could it?

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-01-27&number=38

5 SNP votes against the rise to £3k.

[eFestivals]

SNP votes against the rise to £3k.

as I said. Thanks.

[bunique]

MPs don't smoke inside the houses of parliament.

I'm not sure if it's still true as the person I used to visit has now left us, but you used to be able to smoke indoors in nursing homes.

That's still the case - in your own room or designated space

[gary1979666]

http://may2015.com/featured/who-will-win-labour-and-tories-to-win-280-seats-each-predict-near-identical-forecasts/

Interesting polling info in this link (not sure how reliable etc, but says it takes info from a variety of polls) - shows that both Lab and Con are likely to get 280 seat +/-. And looking at the rest of the spoils, only SNP would have enough to give a majority (and per the Scotland thread, that would be unlikely).

[5co77ie]

just discovered I've been knocked off the electoral register - local government error apparently (Tory Council I've had spats on Twitter with) and have to re-register - everyone has to as an individual - it's not done by household anymore apparently - a lot of people are in for a surpise - this governments latest con

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/electoral-roll-changes

register:

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register-to-vote/how-to-register-to-vote

Edited February 5, 2015 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

http://may2015.com/featured/who-will-win-labour-and-tories-to-win-280-seats-each-predict-near-identical-forecasts/

Interesting polling info in this link (not sure how reliable etc, but says it takes info from a variety of polls) - shows that both Lab and Con are likely to get 280 seat +/-. And looking at the rest of the spoils, only SNP would have enough to give a majority (and per the Scotland thread, that would be unlikely).

but don't forget, the incumbent gets first shot at a coalition, and the largest party gets 2nd shot - and if the SNP won't formally support Labour as the party of govt (which it won't without a payoff that no party can give it), that just about guarantees the tories to win.

Scotland can moan all it likes about the result, but everyone will know their voting decision will have ultimately caused that tory govt when it didn't have to be like that. Everyone else will have voted towards the result they want, while Scotland will have voted to fuck up the result.

[eFestivals]

just discovered I've been knocked off the electoral register - and have to re-register - everyone has to as an individual - it's not done by household anymore apparently - a lot of people are in for a surpise - this governments latest con

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/electoral-roll-changes

It depends on your local council for how they're rolling over the existing lists to the new registration system.

Pleasingly in Brizzle they've rolled over all of the existing registrations, so nothing needs to be done by me to get my vote (the council sent some bumf thru last week that confirmed e are strill on the electoral role)..

But yeah, it's a huge attempt by the tories to gerrymander the result, as Labour voters tend to be more mobile (and so take themselves off the list), and also less likely to check their status.

[kaosmark2]

But yeah, it's a huge attempt by the tories to gerrymander the result, as Labour voters tend to be more mobile (and so take themselves off the list), and also less likely to check their status.

It's almost like the tories care fuck all for the rights and opinions of anyone who doesn't own at least 2 properties.

[5co77ie]

It depends on your local council for how they're rolling over the existing lists to the new registration system.

Pleasingly in Brizzle they've rolled over all of the existing registrations, so nothing needs to be done by me to get my vote (the council sent some bumf thru last week that confirmed e are strill on the electoral role)..

But yeah, it's a huge attempt by the tories to gerrymander the result, as Labour voters tend to be more mobile (and so take themselves off the list), and also less likely to check their status.

Teignbridge had a 'clerical error' - my wife is still registered, and got a letter - she was also the one who did the household registrations (so we wonder if that's why), but it looks like both myself and our daughter have been left off. I wonder how many other households they've had this clerical error with!