Well tbh, I kind of agree with Josh in a lot of ways on this... Why should MPs be allowed to just buy houses and claim for it at the taxpayers' expense...? They need a place to stay while conducting Parliamentary business...? Fine, we'll build 'em a Parliamentary Halls of Residence, a bit like the sort of residences that Students have when they leave home to go to uni.... Or else we give them an allowance to rent a one-bed flat somewhere.... As it it stands, MPs are going around buying these houses as nice little investments... Hoon's situation with the three properties, one of which he was renting out is particularly disgraceful, Prescott had two Jags, this guy has three houses... Hoon is near-as-dammit guilty of FRAUD as far as I'm concerned, and I'd damn well make him pay back every single penny he profited from... MPs should not be allowed to so blatantly profit from their position in this disgusting manner....

 

No, it really is about time we ended this ridiculous state of affairs, far too many of these MPs are just blatantly taking the p!ss and getting away with it....

I've already said that the idea of some sort of state-provided accommodation should be looked at. I've also said that Hoon shouldn't have claimed the second home allowance eeven though it was within the rules.

Yes but why should we pay for them?

 

I hate taxes (even though I don't pay 'em :lol: ), I just really cannot get my head around the concept of it. You work for yourself, not for the government. Any money you earn should be kept for you, as one earned it.

 

Strange.

So who do you want to run the country? Only the very rich?

 

And how would you pay for education, the police, roads, hospitals, defence etc. without tax?

So who do you want to run the country? Only the very rich?

 

And how would you pay for education, the police, roads, hospitals, defence etc. without tax?

 

Suede's right here Josh... taxes are a necessary evil... People, by and large, wouldn't actually choose to pay for prisons, roads, etc..... Where we do have the right to object to however is in how the system is administered and where a lot of these taxes go.... There is so much wasteage in the system that it's beyond a joke.. We need to change the system so that it better serves the public and ensures that public money is used well and wisely (it sure as hell hasn't been used wisely for the past 30 years that's for sure)....

 

MPs should get a decent living wage, but what they shouldn't be allowed to do (and something which I would stop by legislation) is for a SERVING MP to have second jobs, outside memberships of organisations such as The Masons, and places on Corporate, Private or banking boards, or have large investments in a particular company..... ALL of these situations can, in my view, lead to conflicts of interest (in my view there is far too cosy a relationship between the Corporate/Business sector and MPs, this simply MUST stop....), for example, how could you trust a commons inquiry into the conduct of, say, an arms company, if it turns out that one or two of the MPs on the committee have shares in the company....?

 

And I would certainly stop them from having all these "grace and favour" homes.....

I would generally agree with banning second jobs although I don't have any objection to an MP writing the odd newspaper column for example.

 

It would be difficult to ban all grace and favour homes. Besides, 10 Downing Street is more like a large office with a small flat on top. And a PM needs somewhere like Checquers to entertain foreign guests. There may also be ministers who commuted while on the backbenches or a junior minister or a Shadow Minister but who need to spend more time in London when they reach the Cabinet. Again, a grace and favour home may be appropriate in those cases.

 

As for shareholdings, that's a difficult one, particularly where the shares were owned before they were elected. I'm inclined to accept shareholdings as long as they are always declared whenever there may be a conflict of interest. In the example you gave though, the MP should not be eligible to serve on the enquiry because the conflict of interest is too great. A minister, of course, already has to place the shares in trust for other people to handle.

I would generally agree with banning second jobs although I don't have any objection to an MP writing the odd newspaper column for example.

 

It would be difficult to ban all grace and favour homes. Besides, 10 Downing Street is more like a large office with a small flat on top. And a PM needs somewhere like Checquers to entertain foreign guests. There may also be ministers who commuted while on the backbenches or a junior minister or a Shadow Minister but who need to spend more time in London when they reach the Cabinet. Again, a grace and favour home may be appropriate in those cases.

 

As for shareholdings, that's a difficult one, particularly where the shares were owned before they were elected. I'm inclined to accept shareholdings as long as they are always declared whenever there may be a conflict of interest. In the example you gave though, the MP should not be eligible to serve on the enquiry because the conflict of interest is too great. A minister, of course, already has to place the shares in trust for other people to handle.

 

It's not difficult at all... They sell them before taking office.... An MP, as in a person who is supposed to look out for the interests of the PUBLIC, as opposed to corporations or businesses, should have no links or ties at ALL which may result in a conflict of interest.... It's the only way I think that the public will ever trust politicians again.... There are very good reasons why only about 30% of the country vote in elections mate, and it sure isn't because 70% of the country is totally apathetic, it's because of things like this.... So, if you want the majority out there actually voting, they need something and somebody worthy of voting for instead of a bunch of self-serving gits who only look to feather their own nests.....

i have no problem with second jobs AS LONG AS IT DOESNT IMPACT ON THEIR ROLE AS AN MP.

 

many are businessmen with businesses to run, after all, no ones life expectancy as an mp is guaranteed very long!

i have no problem with second jobs AS LONG AS IT DOESNT IMPACT ON THEIR ROLE AS AN MP.

 

many are businessmen with businesses to run, after all, no ones life expectancy as an mp is guaranteed very long!

 

Soz mate, I just dont agree... When you're an MP, that's it.... You take on the responsibilities of that role and that role alone for the duration... If you want to write a few newspaper columns or do a few paid speeches at the Oxford Union or whatever, then that's cool, but I dont think an MP should be involved in business, or the running of a business, it's far too open to abuse, there are just far too many examples of this abuse...

 

If they have businesses, then I'm afraid they just have to give it over to someone else to run, their No2, while they're an MP....

 

It's not difficult at all... They sell them before taking office.... An MP, as in a person who is supposed to look out for the interests of the PUBLIC, as opposed to corporations or businesses, should have no links or ties at ALL which may result in a conflict of interest.... It's the only way I think that the public will ever trust politicians again.... There are very good reasons why only about 30% of the country vote in elections mate, and it sure isn't because 70% of the country is totally apathetic, it's because of things like this.... So, if you want the majority out there actually voting, they need something and somebody worthy of voting for instead of a bunch of self-serving gits who only look to feather their own nests.....

The turnout at the last General Election was around 60%, not 30. That's more like the turnout for local elections.

 

A decent electoral system might help increase turnout. At the moment there are far too many safe seats. The ideal number of safe seats would be zero.