The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[StanSP]

9 minutes ago, Joe90lcfc said:

🤣🤣🤣 come on though, that Ed Miliband eating that burger  still gives me nightmares!!

Just a man eating some food

 

People got far too engrossed into it! 

[weller54]

3 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I was hoping Rory Stewart would gate crash that trainwreck but no doubt he'll bide his time and be back picking up the pieces in two years time.

More chance of Rod Stewart becoming Tory leader.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

7 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

5 5 

 

5'5", bloody hell, the man could legitimately navigate the intricate series of tubes and apparatus at his local Wacky Warehouse™ without any trouble

[Unabomber]

8 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

5 5 

Well he’ll get the sympathy vote that’s for sure. 

[kenny]

4 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

And lots of lovely expenses

Such a naive and lazy comment that is silly discourse at best.

 

Those expenses pay for everything including secretarial staff, offices, travel and stationary.

 

There are instances where MPs have either bent the rules or even worse followed them but the public don't like what they hear later. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Said it before Ill say it again, if you're higher than 5'6 youll be put in a camp if that geezer gets in charge 

[LVFox]

 

Snap polls have TT as impressing the most.

 

Truss viewed abysmally!

[kenny]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

Surely if you can afford £9k+ fees a term, you’d be rich? My family is middle class and really couldn’t afford that. 

Dixie, Ratcliffe and Leicester grammar are12.5k per year.

 

So I would agree with you if your pricing reflected the institutions we had locally.

 

Perhaps you have been pricing up Uppingham or Oakham by accident?

[StanSP]

7 minutes ago, kenny said:

Such a naive and lazy comment that is silly discourse at best.

 

Those expenses pay for everything including secretarial staff, offices, travel and stationary.

 

There are instances where MPs have either bent the rules or even worse followed them but the public don't like what they hear later. 

You know as well as I do they all bend the rules and try to cover up some stuff they don't really need to claim on expenses. 

[kenny]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

You know as well as I do they all bend the rules and try to cover up some stuff they don't really need to claim on expenses. 

Agreed.

 

But to claim that MPs should pay for staff, travel and office expenses from their £80k is downright stupid.

[StanSP]

Just now, kenny said:

Agreed.

 

But to claim that MPs should pay for staff, travel and office expenses from their £80k is downright stupid.

Who said that? 

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Who said that? 

That's where their expenses go. Since the expenses scandal, they are more heavily scrutinised and they are not the salary top up that some ( @Foxdiamond ) may claim.

 

The way to clean up the issue is  to stop calling them expenses. Salaries, travel to London and office rents should not be attributed to an individual.

[kenny]

12 minutes ago, kenny said:

Agreed.

 

But to claim that MPs should pay for staff, travel and office expenses from their £80k is downright stupid.

Probably a good time to apologise for calling someone stupid who may not be aware of how the system works. I went a bit James O'Brien which is a touch out of character.

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Such a naive and lazy comment that is silly discourse at best.

 

Those expenses pay for everything including secretarial staff, offices, travel and stationary.

 

There are instances where MPs have either bent the rules or even worse followed them but the public don't like what they hear later. 

Thank goodness the press exposed some of the antics.  Keep it friendly by the way

[Foxdiamond]

54 minutes ago, kenny said:

That's where their expenses go. Since the expenses scandal, they are more heavily scrutinised and they are not the salary top up that some ( @Foxdiamond ) may claim.

 

The way to clean up the issue is  to stop calling them expenses. Salaries, travel to London and office rents should not be attributed to an individual.

As Stan SP asked who said that. Glad you agree that the system was abused and had to be under such a spotlight. 

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Thank goodness the press exposed some of the antics.  Keep it friendly by the way

Agree on both fronts.   😳

 

Thankfully I personally think the abuse of expenses has stopped and they are now legitimate. We just need the press to stop riling people up into thinking it's a salary top up scam.

[urban.spaceman]

6 minutes ago, kenny said:

Agree on both fronts.   😳

 

Thankfully I personally think the abuse of expenses has stopped and they are now legitimate. We just need the press to stop riling people up into thinking it's a salary top up scam.

Not to disagree or have a go, but I will say I had a look at Coffey’s expenses when she voted to cut £20 a week from UC and said on a radio show people should Jesuit work another couple of hours to make up the £20 (with taxes etc it actually worked out as an extra 9 hours). Her expenses were well over £200k, with thousands on congestion charges, parking etc. There’s also plenty of MPs with family members on the books earning thousands.

 

Personally I’ve begun to really resent the idea that people on the very bottom of the ladder, the most vulnerable in need of real help, are scroungers or parasites or not deserving of a basic quality of life. Braverman said it herself the other day, that too many people don’t need to be on UC - 42% of people on UC are already in work.
 

Meanwhile you’ve got MPs with DAILY lunch allowances of £25, half of whom voted against feeding children during a pandemic, Lords can claim £300 a day just for turning up; they’ve had a pay rise every year for the last decade while everyone else’s wages have stagnated. 
 

There’s a very serious cost of living crisis that there’s a very strong feeling among the public that we really are not all in this together. The RMT guy has been particularly eloquent on this.

 

The overall cost to the taxpayer might not be that big compared to other issues but if Starmer was to promise to bring down the cost of politics by freezing pay rises, putting a cap on expenses, restrictions on second jobs, second homes and employment of family members, a ban on lobbying and a cap on the wealth of who can serve as an MP … basically any of those, I think Starmer would gain a huge amount of support from the public. 

 

[ozleicester]

So.. middle aged white man wins public support 

However, Oz media still talking about Sunak... so...

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Not only that but complete reform in the way in which the political system works.

 

I do not think that a selection few Tory members should decide who leads the country either.  They are not representative of the country as a whole and therefore should not hold so much power.

 

Its really very simple - the country elects a party, the party chooses it's leader.  It is a better system than one with a president, especially as that president can preside over a parliament with a different make up rendering them quite useless.  Alternatively you could force an election if the leader changes, but then we would have been stuck with Boris because a majority of Tory MPs would never have voted for that.

[Jon the Hat]

8 hours ago, Lionator said:

Surely if you can afford £9k+ fees a term, you’d be rich? My family is middle class and really couldn’t afford that. 

I suppose it depends what you consider rich.  And the post said VERY rich.  Plenty of families with two professional parents make sacrifices to pay school fees, and that certainly doesn't make you rich.  The school fees pretty much guarantee you never will be.

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, ealingfox said:

It's absurd that 180,000-odd predominantly white, male Southerners have gotten to pick the PM twice in 4 years.

I agree many more people should hold party membership.  Although look what that did for Labour!

[kenny]

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Not to disagree or have a go, but I will say I had a look at Coffey’s expenses when she voted to cut £20 a week from UC and said on a radio show people should Jesuit work another couple of hours to make up the £20 (with taxes etc it actually worked out as an extra 9 hours). Her expenses were well over £200k, with thousands on congestion charges, parking etc. There’s also plenty of MPs with family members on the books earning thousands.

 

Personally I’ve begun to really resent the idea that people on the very bottom of the ladder, the most vulnerable in need of real help, are scroungers or parasites or not deserving of a basic quality of life. Braverman said it herself the other day, that too many people don’t need to be on UC - 42% of people on UC are already in work.
 

Meanwhile you’ve got MPs with DAILY lunch allowances of £25, half of whom voted against feeding children during a pandemic, Lords can claim £300 a day just for turning up; they’ve had a pay rise every year for the last decade while everyone else’s wages have stagnated. 
 

There’s a very serious cost of living crisis that there’s a very strong feeling among the public that we really are not all in this together. The RMT guy has been particularly eloquent on this.

 

The overall cost to the taxpayer might not be that big compared to other issues but if Starmer was to promise to bring down the cost of politics by freezing pay rises, putting a cap on expenses, restrictions on second jobs, second homes and employment of family members, a ban on lobbying and a cap on the wealth of who can serve as an MP … basically any of those, I think Starmer would gain a huge amount of support from the public. 

 

Agree with all of this. But it also means you won't attract the best talent into politics.

 

If I had to pay for things I need for my job, my expenses would exceed £100k too and I don't travel to London every week.

[Nick]

Often when these politicians are in Parliament they come across at least slightly 'statesman/people-like'.

 

I've just watched that debate and beJesus... Honestly, they look like whiny insecure students doing a shite presentation crossed with candidates for the apprentice.

 

Ugly viewing.

 

 

[Fazzer 7]

The consensus seems to be that come the next GE the Tories will get hammered. If they put in RS, LT or PM it’s more of the same. I’d throw caution to the wind and get TT or KB in, see what they can do. It feels like there’s literally nothing to lose, and you never know KB being the first Black female PM might just strike a cord with some or even surprise us. 

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

The consensus seems to be that come the next GE the Tories will get hammered. If they put in RS, LT or PM it’s more of the same. I’d throw caution to the wind and get TT or KB in, see what they can do. It feels like there’s literally nothing to lose, and you never know KB being the first Black female PM might just strike a cord with some or even surprise us. 

I look at those candidates and I want diversity to shine through. Then I look at them again and what they stand for and the last one I'd throw in the sea would be Tom. 

 

There's some real sell-outs in that group that for me don't really represent or understand elements of their heritage.