John Bercow's expenses.

[londonblue]

Why ?

Nobody puts a gun to their head to force them into the job,just like everyone else with their chosen job the pay is the pay.

Should be more Mr and Mrs average taking up the role and they would be content with the current 60 odd grand and probably not claim expenses on the things the idiots claim for.

True, but at the moment they know their salary, and they know it will be supplemented with expenses which for the most part are legitimate. There is a fair few that may have abused the system in the past, but if they earned what they need to do their job properly then that wouldn't be an issue.

 

[londonblue]

If MPs are worried about security issues that would arise from having to live together in the NEC/halls/Dolphin Sq, then perhaps they'll think twice about their foreign policies.

Personally I struggle to get too outraged about MPs expenses. Yes it's open to abuse and a waste of taxpayers money, but without the full context and background it's hard to know what is reasonable and what is not.

A 7 day visit to Australia with a colleague at £13000 doesn't sound too much if you factor in business class flights.

Bercow's role is to represent parliament so it's not a surprise that he's having to do last minute dashes across the country to various events, and with a decent car and driver those will cost.

That is just wrong. Do you honestly believe that foreign policy should be dictated by terrorists, and that politicians should be too scared of terrorism to vote the way they honestly believe?

As it happens I completely agree with the rest of what you say.

 

[londonblue]

Greed comes in all forms , whether on £ 10 k a year or £ 250 k, many would not be satisfied and would claim something else

No wonder many people are disillusioned with all parties in the UK

But my point is that there would be no claims because there would be no expenses. The MP has to pay for everything out of their salary. If they want to waste that on duck ponds instead of staff then more fool them.

But at the end of the day that this their prerogative because its their money. Just like I can spend my salary any way I want.

 

[Pubey]

That is just wrong. Do you honestly believe that foreign policy should be dictated by terrorists?

As it happens I completely agree with the rest of what you say.

I was being slightly facetious, although our foreign policy is clearly already dictated by terrorists. If our MPs are a high risk target for terrorists, then maybe they should step back and think why.

Not really a Monbiot fan, but he nails some important points in this article:

[barna] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/islamic-extremism-cameron-struggle-generation
[/barna]

The 'danger' of terrorism is completely inflated by the govt and media. We live in a world of take-your-shoes-off, stop and search, racial profiling, CCTV, mass data, all in the name of extremism and terrorism. This isn't something that our MPs have to suffer particularly - they're in their bubble of offshore weath, chauffeur-driven parties and meetings, business class expenses and under-elected power (what I mean is, only 24% of people eligible, voted Tory (similar for last Labour govt)).

Any attempt for them to have a more 'normalised' existance, which maybe makes them a little more in tune with the general risks and lifestyles of 99.9% of their citizenship would be a good thing.

 

[londonblue]

The 'danger' of terrorism is completely inflated by the govt and media. We live in a world of take-your-shoes-off, stop and search, racial profiling, CCTV, mass data, all in the name of extremism and terrorism. This isn't something that our MPs have to suffer particularly - they're in their bubble of offshore weath, chauffeur-driven parties and meetings, business class expenses and under-elected power (what I mean is, only 24% of people eligible, voted Tory (similar for last Labour govt)).

Any attempt for them to have a more 'normalised' existance, which maybe makes them a little more in tune with the general risks and lifestyles of 99.9% of their citizenship would be a good thing.

I'm not sure I agree with that. My reasoning is admittedly weak however. The way I see it is that progressive governments recently (i.e. Labour in 97, and the tories and Lib Dems recently) have all said whilst in opposition that they think security laws are OTT, but once they get into power and are privy to security updates etc they ALL say the same thing in the end.

For all political parties to be sceptical, and then change their minds when in power, something must be going on that we don't get to hear about.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Two points; the risk of a successful terrorist attack is heightened by weakening of intelligence services and police (cuts) as the foiling, before the acts take place, is what stops them happening NOT the location (P of W).

AND; the surprise of the Lord's coke and prostitute "affair" is that it didn't involve abusing children or S&M antics.:blush:

 

[davew]

they are all the same, shameless

 

[Gremlin]

Bercow is the little fella, isn't he? If so I reckon it would have been cheaper to have him posted to these locations in future. Get DHL etc. to bid for an annual contract. Then we'd all know the costs up front.

 

[davew]

they are all the same, shameless

Could not agree more

 

[Jam_Man]

Could not agree more

Post of the year.

I'd be concerned if you disagreed.

 

[davew]

If MPs are making illegal expenses claims then they are breaking the law (stealing ) then they should be prosecuted and lose their seat. I hope that all MPs are true and honest, but that appears to be not the case