El Cid Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 " If you pay peanuts you get monkeys " ...... well according to that, they must be earning a pittance ! Public sector workers have been offered 1%, yet top bosses are getting 17%. MPs did have a pay freeze, similar to public sector workers. So perhaps both need to catch up a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincero dOro Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The Lib-Dems agreed to support this when the Tories agreed to support reform of the House of Lords. The Tories then reneged on their bit and the Lib-Dems in retaliation then reneged on the boundary commission proposals that would have reduced the number of MPs to 600. So what you are saying is if Labour and the Liberal Democrats hadn't voted against the proposal there would be 50 odd fewer MPs. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Totally agree. America only has 535 (spread over the senate and congress). India has a similar number. Why we need 650 plus the house of lords is anyone's guess. You're ignoring the fact that all US states have their own state governments attorney generals and Governors. They vary a lot in terms of whether they're full-time or part-time but they have far more powers than our local authorities have. ---------- Post added 21-05-2013 at 22:27 ---------- So what you are saying is if Labour and the Liberal Democrats hadn't voted against the proposal there would be 50 odd fewer MPs. . No. I'm saying that in principle the Lib-Dems support it but voted against it to shaft the Tories because the Tories had shafted the Lib-Dems by reneging on their part of the deal. It still might come into effect but only if the Tories support House Of Lords reform. This won't happen though as the Tories have shot themselves in the foot by being too intransigent and bloody-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The average for someone on around £20-£30k pa is a 2-3% increase. Im happy for them to get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 You're ignoring the fact that all US states have their own state governments attorney generals and Governors. They vary a lot in terms of whether they're full-time or part-time but they have far more powers than our local authorities have. ---------- Post added 21-05-2013 at 22:27 ---------- No. I'm saying that in principle the Lib-Dems support it but voted against it to shaft the Tories because the Tories had shafted the Lib-Dems by reneging on their part of the deal. It still might come into effect but only if the Tories support House Of Lords reform. This won't happen though as the Tories have shot themselves in the foot by being too intransigent and bloody-minded. We don't need 650 mps. You might have noticed a fairly important bill was voted on yesterday. By my reckoning (based on this http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22605011) we only need 527, tops. Where were the other 123? Have they got sick notes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Has nobody understood the words COULD and PLANS and PROPOSED in the said articles. God sake, at least wait for something to happen before getting all foamy mouthed. The Parliamentary Standards have proposed a rise. It needs to be supported by the leaders which currently seems unlikely, then then have to vote for it which would invovle much opposition. Beleive it or not this happened exactly the same last year and the year before.... Guess what? They didn't get it. Papers just like to sell papers News outlets just like to shock and cause drama. Read between the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Threads merged. One current thread per topic please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincero dOro Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 No. I'm saying that in principle the Lib-Dems support it but voted against it to shaft the Tories because the Tories had shafted the Lib-Dems by reneging on their part of the deal. It still might come into effect but only if the Tories support House Of Lords reform. This won't happen though as the Tories have shot themselves in the foot by being too intransigent and bloody-minded. So what you are saying is if Labour and the Liberal Democrats hadn't voted against the proposal there would be 50 odd fewer MPs. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Public sector workers have been offered 1%, yet top bosses are getting 17%. MPs did have a pay freeze, similar to public sector workers. So perhaps both need to catch up a little? Do they? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 There is no alternative (tina). The three main parties are all neoliberal. Free market ideology has been actively embraced by the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties – many tories sat in wide eyed admiration of Mr Blair, and Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have simply picked up where New Labour left off. What the political class has established over the last 40 years is a corporate friendly economy across the UK. This means that executives and investors get very, very rich, and ordinary people face redundancy, or see their jobs at risk, their wages reduced, their terms and conditions eroded, their services cut and the move to indirect taxation that reduces the value of the money in their pocket. As the idea of salary increases for MPs demonstrates, the politicians are triumphant. They know that, though their grasping will cause some grumbling, and some activists are likely to mount a demonstartion or two, ultimately ordinary people have no power to resist. Democracy is as far away from UK shores as ever. And of course the politicians will reckon that since it is they who have shaped economic policy in favour of the rich, it is only reasonable that they too should share in the bonanza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.