Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I look forward to an unaccountable executive, and even less experienced legislature.
(C) brusma 2009-13
is being made a minister.
Lump five constituencies together, then divvy up the MPs on a PR basis.
Three new MPs for an area previously covered by five old constituencies, or whatever.
I think the public are on side with Ed on this.
Also, limit to individual donations at 5k might play well. Tories had 25m in funding from hedge funds who in turn benefited from a £145m tax break...
500% return on their investment.
I'm not sure how sitting on the board of a city company for one afternoon a month makes someone more experienced or connected with the real world to be honest - it's just likely to lead to a conflict of interests and a MPs only ever speaking to the 1%ers.
I'd also like to see MP abstaining from any vote/policy area in which they have a financial interest e.g. those who own shares in private health providers.
if you were, say, someone with a background in renewable energy, maybe even an academic one, and you were heavily involved in campaigning for it, you might feasibly invest in or make contacts with renewable energy companies. Then if you became an MP, maybe even a Green MP who campaigned on a platform of increased renewable energy supply, you could be accused of a conflict of interest, even if you were upfront about any investments or contacts. It's all very well painting a picture of greedy MPs profiting from their own policies, but if you actually believe in an issue it almost seems obstructionist if you're constricted in the level of support you can give to it. You might as well argue that Labour MPs shouldn't be allowed a vote on any policy area to do with the unions, or to vote on issues that effect the constituency where they live.
Or you can sell your shares.
It's about personally benefiting financially from voting through laws - there's nothing to say that you can't have connections with these groups - otherwise the Labour MPs who work with anti-poverty groups wouldn't be allowed to vote on most things.
but there are so many areas where the line between corruption and conviction is blurred.
but thinking more, it couldnt get taht much more corrupt really
Did a similar report for the public sector show they weren't? Just wondering.
If it is, that is a public sector.
on public sector workers.
However, "In the first year following the two-year public-sector pay freeze, the independent public-sector pay review bodies were asked to make recommendations in line with the Government's policy of awards averaging 1% from 1 April 2013. Although most of them did so, not all the recommendations were accepted by the Government."
In particular, how it relates to the accountability of our current executive.
then MPs will only be drawn from the ranks of the wealthy.
I think he's implying that wealthy people are either corrupt or stupid, or that they'd only act in the interests of their fellow 1%ers, but I'm can't be certain.
Not sure why you'd need to be independently wealthy to survive on £65,000 a year plus expenses, but what do I know.
As opposed to our current lot who still have to squeeze in a shift down the mines every Thursday to supplement their income.
At present, Ministers are chosen from MPs, but if MPs are no longer allowed second jobs, all Ministers will have to be drawn from those outside the ranks of elected representatives. In short, the individuals which make up UK Government become about as democratically accountable as the Commissioners running the EU - which is to say, not at all.
I appreciate that some (unelected) Lords are made Ministers, but they are in the minority, and even then they are appointed (and can be sacked) by the Prime Minister who is democratically elected and sits above everyone.
Has anyone actually proposed this?
Unless we directly elect Ministers, but I don't see anyone proposing that either.
No second job unless it's a ministerial one in parliament.
they could be unduly influenced because of them.
And connection to the real world, rather than having their own political class?
Seems a bit unfair to deprive ministers of that
that argument is complete bollocks.
Now, if MPs were doing voluntary charity work, or were working as a teaching assistant, or a carer, then yes, that argument might be valid.
Perhaps their expenses claims could be linked to a kind of 'community service' kind of thing...
gives him much of a grounding in anything. Especially as much of his activity in parliament seems to be pushing the agenda of the company he's a director for.
there's loads of people out there with no jobs, bit greedy of MPs to want 2
I'm pretty impressed with it but, nonetheless, it's pretty unexpected how he's gone in the space of the week from having no policies to proposing massive changes to everything... I starting to think this Unite business may be the best thing that could have happened for him...