Vocal Voices

On top of your £66,000 salary.

You can get a second home in London with our 'rent to buy' expenses scheme. We will pay for your food and transport and stuff like that, you just tell us how much it costs and we will cough up. You can employ your family as researchers and secretaries and the likes and we will pay for them. Experience is no problem, they can learn 'on the job'. They can also have expenses, but they are pretty strictly controlled. They will need receipts, but they are easy enough to get hold of. Working hours are relaxed, very relaxed, and the holidays are, shall we say "sufficient". Of course, if you have to leave, for whatever reason, be it rejection by the voters, criminal activity, anything really, we will give you a huge golden handshake and a tremendous pension. Oh, and before I forget, this does not have to be your only job. No. You can have loads of others, directorships and the likes, in preparation for when you have had enough.

Sign here__________________

Yes but I won't get free dinners!

Expenses for Second Homes.. Expenses for furniture and un-necessary luxuries. Travel here and abroad.. We are really suckers aren't we? Sigh, complain..it wont make one iota of difference

£6,000 pay rise? Thanks very much, I'll have two!
Honestly though, our MP's are pretty foul. As well as employing their relatives as "researchers", "office managers" etc, they seem to have the monarchical principle - wanting their partners and offspring to become MP's as well (and no wonder).
They don't seem to understand the phrase "Conflict of interest" and own shares in companies in areas that they are responsible for and they are using their children to claim more in expenses.
That's before their general hypocrisy is taken into account.
I'd vote for the "Military Coup" party tomorrow!

It could be 6000 a month and I would not take it.

The Invasion of privacy by the press is the way too much.

I think we should have far fewer MPs.

Also I think that candidates for parliamentary election should have to pass an IQ test.

Then I might agree to a pay rise.

Aggers wrote:I think we should have far fewer MPs.

Yes!
Get their numbers down to 500 as a starting point.

I loved the comment from one eejit MP interviewed by the Beeb (can't recall which party it was) that a pay rise would attract a "better sort of person" for the job.

Not quite sure how that sits alongside the rigging of constituency candidate lists by both major parties .......

Well, personally, I would have thought the best kind of person for the job is someone who has no money worries, has a very strong social conscience and believes, firmly, that their position in government is to benefit the country and not their bottom line.

Ah but was that not what the House of Lords with inherited peerages was all about????

Silly me. No we have to pay some transient drive by moneyandpowergrabber as much as we can possibly afford, lest some riff raff get into the job....

There are people who earn less than £30,000 a year that I would trust more than every politician in Westminster. When it comes to the welfare or our country and people.

But, anyway, I've already said I wouldn't do it for any sum paid to UK politicians. So what do I know?

Well, I would have an elected upper chamber of 200. They would do it for nothing more than 'capped' expenses; and if that meant only those with no money worries but a wish to work for the country were bothered: so be it.

I would also reduce the lower house to 300: fixed salary, capped expenses, and only one outside job. They would have had to live in their constituency for 12 months before being selected and for the selection process to be lead by the local constituency party. All their secretarial, research and office staff would be paid for directly by government after a proper interviewing process. Office supplies, including laptops, phones etc, would also be provided from government stores. Travel would be by second class warrant - cashable, to allow for personal upgrade/alternative means.