And yet, didn't Denis MacShane claim £180,000 for a derelict garage that he claimed was his 'office' and then when he was released from jail become a lobbyist at the EU earning heaven knows what?
I read this as the author agreeing with something I have long argued for but seems politically impossible. A huge increase in earnings for a vital job that is vastly undercompensated compared to its importance, in return for banning "shadow income" that comes via donations and second jobs.
Clearly this situation exists because it's politically unpalatable to raise wages, so a permissive attitude to extras has been allowed to replace some of the income neccessary to attract and retain quality candidates, to the detriment of the percieved (and sometimes actual) incorruptability of MPs.
Broadly agree. But you need to differentiate between "earn" and "receive", they are not synonyms. It is the reader's choice to decide whether that money was earned by someone, it is your job to report on what that person received.
The fault is that money and benefits go only to existing politicians in existing parties, thereby reinfircing the status quo. Despite the widespread dismay at the performance of the political system it is all but impossible for a new party, or an MP without party allegiance, to mke any impact on the Parliamentary system.
Tom defends the quantum of money received by MPs. But why should a candidate for a party internal election get funding just because it is an old party.
Tom defends the quantum but he does not address the incompetence of MPs in making the proper reports. Even as Parliament passes legislation or permits orders to implement rules from government departments, not least HMRC, the MPs fail to report accurately or on time whereas SMEs and individuals ate fined for missing (for instance ) a 14 day deadline to make a Nil report.
We are continually nagged by the bureaucracy to submit returns online even as they take weeks to answer our questions.
Is the criticism of MPs unfair or just too general and insufficiently focussed?
And yet, didn't Denis MacShane claim £180,000 for a derelict garage that he claimed was his 'office' and then when he was released from jail become a lobbyist at the EU earning heaven knows what?
Pay the same as MEP. That so do the trick !
I read this as the author agreeing with something I have long argued for but seems politically impossible. A huge increase in earnings for a vital job that is vastly undercompensated compared to its importance, in return for banning "shadow income" that comes via donations and second jobs.
Clearly this situation exists because it's politically unpalatable to raise wages, so a permissive attitude to extras has been allowed to replace some of the income neccessary to attract and retain quality candidates, to the detriment of the percieved (and sometimes actual) incorruptability of MPs.
*sixth largest economy
Broadly agree. But you need to differentiate between "earn" and "receive", they are not synonyms. It is the reader's choice to decide whether that money was earned by someone, it is your job to report on what that person received.
The fault is that money and benefits go only to existing politicians in existing parties, thereby reinfircing the status quo. Despite the widespread dismay at the performance of the political system it is all but impossible for a new party, or an MP without party allegiance, to mke any impact on the Parliamentary system.
Tom defends the quantum of money received by MPs. But why should a candidate for a party internal election get funding just because it is an old party.
Tom defends the quantum but he does not address the incompetence of MPs in making the proper reports. Even as Parliament passes legislation or permits orders to implement rules from government departments, not least HMRC, the MPs fail to report accurately or on time whereas SMEs and individuals ate fined for missing (for instance ) a 14 day deadline to make a Nil report.
We are continually nagged by the bureaucracy to submit returns online even as they take weeks to answer our questions.
Is the criticism of MPs unfair or just too general and insufficiently focussed?