mikem8634 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I know it would probably never be allowed in law but in a hypothetical scenario do you think it would improve public services, such as public transport, the NHS, state schools etc., if MPs and their families were compelled to use them (and were banned from private alternatives) for the duration of their tenure in the House of Commons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I know it would probably never be allowed in law but in a hypothetical scenario do you think it would improve public services, such as public transport, the NHS, state schools etc., if MPs and their families were compelled to use them (and were banned from private alternatives) for the duration of their tenure in the House of Commons? Better to give them DLA ammount I receive, and ask them to "live on that." Sorry - "exist on that" was the correct term. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Better to give them DLA ammount I receive, and ask them to "live on that." Sorry - "exist on that" was the correct term. Angel. I like your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron sky Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Angel is right. MPs live in there own world where money is no object. While us mortals live on pences. Yet they seek to get every last penny off us. They want your sons to fight our wars give there lives for there country. But give nothing in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 I was wondering if they experienced more public services would that generate more political will to improve public services? Perhaps Labour could adopt the idea. All Labour MPs and parliamentary candidates could pledge to use public services where possible during their time as MPs. It might help them reconnect with a large portion of the electorate and certainly could reinvigorate their grass roots support. Pretty unlikely though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I was wondering if they experienced more public services would that generate more political will to improve public services? Perhaps Labour could adopt the idea. All Labour MPs and parliamentary candidates could pledge to use public services where possible during their time as MPs. It might help them reconnect with a large portion of the electorate and certainly could reinvigorate their grass roots support. Pretty unlikely though. I would think they would throw the old favouite at us, their security would be compromised if they had to use "public" transport. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 I would think they would throw the old favouite at us, their security would be compromised if they had to use "public" transport. Angel. Very good point - didn't think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Speaking of MPs and public services, in the last 20 years MPs have inflicted one public service reform after another on the NHS, state education, welfare, local government etc. The rationale for such reform is that such services must operate like the market in giving their customers choice and competition - strange then that when MPs debated Lords reform lots of Tories stood up & complained that if the House of Lords was elected then the the second chamber would rival the the Commons. If public sector Trade Unions had complained like these MPs about protecting their monopoly on this public service then Tories would be banging on on about 'vested interests' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 MPs have to use public services. We all do. What we are talking about is picking and choosing services where it is possible to make some kind of choice. There aren't really that many of those services : education and certain elements of health care essentially. They have no genuine fully private alternatives for: emergency services roads, other transport air traffic control police military judiciary specialist health care (burns, trauma, spinal units etc...) specialist disability services utility grids: power, water, gas, sewage etc... etc... etc... They use all these things, or have the potential to need to use (or be protected by them). They don't live in a bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 MPs have to use public services. We all do. What we are talking about is picking and choosing services where it is possible to make some kind of choice. There aren't really that many of those services : education and certain elements of health care essentially. They have no genuine fully private alternatives for: emergency services roads, other transport air traffic control police military judiciary specialist health care (burns, trauma, spinal units etc...) specialist disability services utility grids: power, water, gas, sewage etc... etc... etc... They use all these things, or have the potential to need to use (or be protected by them). They don't live in a bubble. Quite right that is an excellent point - perhaps I should've restricted the point to the aspects of the NHS that have no private alternatives, public transport whenever possible and education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.