|
Post by Roadsterstu on Sept 5, 2019 17:50:49 GMT
I bet there's no quote that says, "We're here because the electorate put us here and we have their very best interests at heart. We are here, in public service, doing our best for our country and our people and, for them, we will do just that."
Instead, I tend to hear, "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 23:36:34 GMT
You know, that is just about where I am with this. None of them are worth what WE pay them.
The system must change and we need representatives to represent the country, not their own or their friends financial desires.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 6, 2019 7:52:27 GMT
I don't know if anyone heard Ben Elton on Virgin Radio this morning: he talked a lot of sense when he said that a referendum with a single question is about as far from democracy as you can get. He then went on to give the example that if we held a referendum with the question "Do you want lower taxes?" it would be very likely that a large majority would tick the box for yes. However you can't simply ask a one liner question in a complex world because the effect of lower taxes might mean fewer nurses, long doctor surgery waiting times, overcrowded schools, bin collections once a month etc. If you were to ask the question again and say "Do you want lower taxes which will result in 20% less nurses etc etc" it is very likely the referendum question would return a different answer.
Perhaps, like cigarette packets, referendums should also carry risk warnings!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 6, 2019 8:06:33 GMT
You know, that is just about where I am with this. None of them are worth what WE pay them. The system must change and we need representatives to represent the country, not their own or their friends financial desires. In truth WE don't pay them very much - in salary terms at least - considering they're meant to be running the country. E.g. BoJo gets paid significantly more per annum for writing a weekly column for the Telegraph than he does for being the PM. What do you want to do about that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 10:10:16 GMT
I don't call a basic minimum of £79,468 with expenses not very much pay. No idea how many still have second homes or how many get their second home mortgage paid by the treasury/expenses. Do YOU get that?
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Sept 6, 2019 10:24:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 6, 2019 10:26:53 GMT
I don't call a basic minimum of £79,468 with expenses not very much pay. No idea how many still have second homes or how many get their second home mortgage paid by the treasury/expenses. Do YOU get that? To be fair the best candidates are not going to be attracted by that salary. I’d make it £150k a year and ditch expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 6, 2019 10:48:10 GMT
I don't call a basic minimum of £79,468 with expenses not very much pay. No idea how many still have second homes or how many get their second home mortgage paid by the treasury/expenses. Do YOU get that? To be fair the best candidates are not going to be attracted by that salary. I’d make it £150k a year and ditch expenses. My point was that £79k for being an integral part of the running of the country doesn't seem to be very much. I would pay them more - maybe Bob's £150k isn't enough - but would require this was their only job so all the ones who are also variously QCs, financial advisors, etc would have to take a sabbatical from that career. Running the country should be a full time job. I've also said previously that expenses should be dealt with in the same way as for the rest of us - you don't pay out unless it's a proper business expense and there's a supporting invoice. Finally 2nd homes shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer. I think a much better solution might be to build a massive hotel (or several, if you want to spread them out a bit to reduce the risk of attacks) in London, owned by the state and house them all in there when they're not in their constituency. That way security details could be organised to protect them all more easily and efficiently rather than them being scattered around the capital and it would remove the controversy around the taxpayer coughing up £1,000s for cushions, decorating and other crap that the MPs do first when they move in.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Sept 6, 2019 10:51:39 GMT
It has been said that Guy was the only person to enter the Houses of Parliament with honourable intentions......
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Sept 6, 2019 10:54:30 GMT
Finally 2nd homes shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer. I think a much better solution might be to build a massive hotel (or several, if you want to spread them out a bit to reduce the risk of attacks) in London, owned by the state and house them all in there when they're not in their constituency. That way security details could be organised to protect them all more easily and efficiently rather than them being scattered around the capital and it would remove the controversy around the taxpayer coughing up £1,000s for cushions, decorating and other crap that the MPs do first when they move in. There should be a proper sort-of Government Hotel where they stay. With over 300 MPs, it would surely be far cheaper to build an accommodation block where every MP had a mini-hotel suite with bedroom, kitchen area etc rather than letting them buy a second house or rent a flat "on the state".
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 6, 2019 11:06:02 GMT
The problem with all this reasonable, in the national interest thinking, is that these are MP's we are talking about and they are the ones who vote on this stuff for themselves. If you give that kind of authority to self centred, self interested people then they will always choose the path that gives them the most.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 6, 2019 15:43:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 16:07:39 GMT
Literally, LMFAO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 9:45:12 GMT
Literally? I'm hoping not...
Looks like Strawman is having as much fun as his predecessor in the Top Job.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 9, 2019 11:28:51 GMT
Looks like Strawman is having as much fun as his predecessor in the Top Job. If I ignore the seriousness of the situation we, the country, find ourselves in then I'm struggling not to laugh at Boris' predicament - having apparently lied, cheated and manipulated his way to the top and achieved his heart's desire to become PM he now has his hands pretty much tied so tightly that he can't actually do anything remotely like govern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 12:02:49 GMT
Literally? I'm hoping not...
Looks like Strawman is having as much fun as his predecessor in the Top Job. I have noticed the lint and cat fur on the floor much more of late. I must invest in a new broom.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 9, 2019 13:54:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 10, 2019 0:44:05 GMT
I do enjoy the Suffolk Gazette. Particularly as a Suffolk native...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:27:28 GMT
Is that a bit like the actress and the bishop? Swallows and Amazons?
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 11, 2019 9:56:40 GMT
The English courts deemed the prorogation legal. This morning, the Scottish courts say it is illegal. "The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution," So the Scottish court has taken a political decision then?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 11, 2019 10:03:41 GMT
It says it would be unlawful IF its purpose was to stymie scrutiny.
That seems reasonable to me, IF that is what the intention was (and lets not kid ourselves no matter what BoJo says that seems a reasonable assumption).
Anyway isn't this a decision on appeal? So no doubt there will be more cash heading to lawyers when the Government appeal it again.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 11, 2019 10:16:25 GMT
It's going to be heard in the Supreme Court in London later this week and that will be the judgement that will determine what happens next.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 11, 2019 10:42:53 GMT
It says it would be unlawful IF its purpose was to stymie scrutiny. That seems reasonable to me, IF that is what the intention was (and lets not kid ourselves no matter what BoJo says that seems a reasonable assumption). Anyway isn't this a decision on appeal? So no doubt there will be more cash heading to lawyers when the Government appeal it again. That's my point. The letter of the law allows the prorogation of Parliament. The English courts followed that. The Scottish courts seem to be saying that the spirit of the law may well have been broken, but as far as I'm aware, breaking the spirit of a law is not illegal. It may be morally questionable, but that's not a matter for the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 11, 2019 10:46:26 GMT
It says it would be unlawful IF its purpose was to stymie scrutiny. That seems reasonable to me, IF that is what the intention was (and lets not kid ourselves no matter what BoJo says that seems a reasonable assumption). Anyway isn't this a decision on appeal? So no doubt there will be more cash heading to lawyers when the Government appeal it again. That's my point. The letter of the law allows the prorogation of Parliament. The English courts followed that. The Scottish courts seem to be saying that the spirit of the law may well have been broken, but as far as I'm aware, breaking the spirit of a law is not illegal. It may be morally questionable, but that's not a matter for the courts. Fair enough. Remember though that Scots Law differs in some areas (e.g. the 'Not Proven' verdict) so maybe this is one, although I'm not sure why it would or how it would help in any way!
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 11, 2019 10:58:13 GMT
The legal question is whether the advice given to the Queen by the PM that there was a constitutional/legal reason to suspend Parliament, was correct. If the PM misled the Queen on the reasons, then the suspension was illegal.
The question as I see it, is whether the PM's reasons for wanting Parliament suspended and the associated reasons he gave the Queen, were justifiable. If the PM had a justifiable reason then the suspension has to stand even if the Courts might believe that it wasn't the only reason. However if he told lies, he's in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 11, 2019 11:17:27 GMT
There was clearly a need for a Queens speech in order to bring the withdrawal agreement back to the house as that's the best chance to avoid leaving without a deal. This court case is as cynical as the claims they make.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 11, 2019 19:09:21 GMT
In your opinion.
There are actually important differences between Scots and English law particularly around how they view the prerogative powers. So if you are a lawyer the Scots decision isn’t surprising or wrong and neither is the English one.
The Supreme Court will need to form a final view next week.
I personally think it will side with the High Court but probably it will do so out of all-round expedience rather than on any other basis. I’d not be surprised to find that Buck House is quietly pulling every lever it can get its collective mitts on to ensure the Queen is not embarrassed and it is considerably less embarrassing for HM if the Supreme Court rules that the advice to prorogue Parliament was legal.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 13:27:37 GMT
For more proof that we are indeed being led by liars and charlatans, this is what the business secretary, Andrea "As a Mother" Leadsom, had to say just before the Project Yellowhammer documents were released:
"I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is absolutely the worst thing that could happen"...
This will be the documents which when leaked referred to the "base case scenario" but now, curiously, when officially released referred to the same things as "reasonable worst-case scenario".
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 13:47:22 GMT
The general thrust of the Yellowhammer documents was explained before the vote so I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone - it is the worst case scenario after all.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 14:00:04 GMT
Certainly no surprise to me. But surprise or not, the Government certainly seems concerned that it might, ahem, concern people.
|
|