Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

Worth every penny.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25411182

[chrisp65]

The Mirror chose a tory to show up what a poor system we've managed to evolve for ourselves. I'd be sure the nasty papers could find many examples of Labour leeches too.

 

I'm not familiar with the Lords remuneration system, but if its a flat £300 on attendance regardless then it is as stupid as the system for the Commons. If I didn't turn down my inevitable peerage I couldn't afford to get there and do a day's work and get home for £300. Much better to pop in for 21 minutes eiter side of an overnight stay. Then, with £600 cleared you could possibly make a little modest pocket change.

[villaajax]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........

 

 

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job"

[coda]

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........

 

 

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job"

 

 

"You look fine. We'll ring you a taxi."

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........

 

 

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job"

 

 

"You look fine. We'll ring you a taxi."

 

And Under our new proposals you'll have to either sell your home or a Kidney for private transplant to fund the profits of government contracted health care suppliers who will in all likelihood provide a poorer service, but trust us, it's for the best!

Edited December 17, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[Kingfisher]

The Mirror chose a tory to show up what a poor system we've managed to evolve for ourselves. I'd be sure the nasty papers could find many examples of Labour leeches too.

I'm not familiar with the Lords remuneration system, but if its a flat £300 on attendance regardless then it is as stupid as the system for the Commons. If I didn't turn down my inevitable peerage I couldn't afford to get there and do a day's work and get home for £300. Much better to pop in for 21 minutes eiter side of an overnight stay. Then, with £600 cleared you could possibly make a little modest pocket change.

Your travel is paid for, wont cost you a dime. You can turn up, clock in and go home for £300 a day, every day, easy money. If you'd already been exposed as a greedy, self serving criminal, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's exactly what you did. Occasionally helping pass the odd law, like making the feckless unemployed work for their benefits of £70 a week (without expenses).

[chrisp65]

 

The Mirror chose a tory to show up what a poor system we've managed to evolve for ourselves. I'd be sure the nasty papers could find many examples of Labour leeches too.

I'm not familiar with the Lords remuneration system, but if its a flat £300 on attendance regardless then it is as stupid as the system for the Commons. If I didn't turn down my inevitable peerage I couldn't afford to get there and do a day's work and get home for £300. Much better to pop in for 21 minutes eiter side of an overnight stay. Then, with £600 cleared you could possibly make a little modest pocket change.

Your travel is paid for, wont cost you a dime. You can turn up, clock in and go home for £300 a day, every day, easy money. If you'd already been exposed as a greedy, self serving criminal, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's exactly what you did. Occasionally helping pass the odd law, like making the feckless unemployed work for their benefits of £70 a week (without expenses).

 

 

I've heard a radio interview with the guy since, he was claiming he couldn't eat and heat on £300 a day. Said it with no sense of irony whatsoever. Tories have lost a good one there.

[blandy]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

[colhint]

we still need to shoot the odd one or two at random, just to keep them on their toes

[drat01]

It seems the the Tory party feelings are not just oozing out now they are gushing out in a torrent of quite astonishing policies

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/government-under-fire-eu-funding-food-banks

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........

 

 

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job"

 

 

"You look fine. We'll ring you a taxi."

 

And Under our new proposals you'll have to either sell your home or a Kidney for private transplant to fund the profits of government contracted health care suppliers who will in all likelihood provide a poorer service, but trust us, it's for the best!

 

 

The facts:

 

The USA spends 18% of its gdp on health care but 50 million Americans are not covered.

 

The UK spends 9% of its gdp on healthcare and everyone is covered (including half of Europe according to some).

 

Questions:

 

Why do Tories think moving towards a more American-type system (market-driven private provision) is a better, more efficient system?

 

And why do Tory voters agree with them?

[thetrees]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

In fairness you need to pay for quality, but then the amount of Unite drongos that are bring fast tracked for Labour nominations suggests that quality is in short supply.

[Kingfisher]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

In fairness you need to pay for quality

That's been the number one motto in the banking/financial sectors for years. Edited December 18, 2013 by Kingfisher

[villaajax]

 

 

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........

 

 

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job"

 

 

"You look fine. We'll ring you a taxi."

 

And Under our new proposals you'll have to either sell your home or a Kidney for private transplant to fund the profits of government contracted health care suppliers who will in all likelihood provide a poorer service, but trust us, it's for the best!

 

 

The facts:

 

The USA spends 18% of its gdp on health care but 50 million Americans are not covered.

 

The UK spends 9% of its gdp on healthcare and everyone is covered (including half of Europe according to some).

 

Questions:

 

Why do Tories think moving towards a more American-type system (market-driven private provision) is a better, more efficient system?

 

And why do Tory voters agree with them?

 

 

People that vote tory are more likely to have private healthcare so what do they care about the NHS?

[Avfc96]

[chrisp65]

 

 

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

In fairness you need to pay for quality, but then the amount of Unite drongos that are bring fast tracked for Labour nominations suggests that quality is in short supply.

 

 

Out of curiosity, why would you turn that into an anti Labour point?

[Awol]

 

People that vote tory are more likely to have private healthcare so what do they care about the NHS?

 

Is there any evidence to support this or simply your guess presented as fact?  When Cameron's disabled son was in a very bad way before he died he was treated by the NHS, so if the head of the party was using the state system I just wondered why it would automatically follow that it's: Tory = private health, everyone else = NHS.

 

It's not like that in the education sector either.

 

 

 

The facts:

 

The USA spends 18% of its gdp on health care but 50 million Americans are not covered.

 

The UK spends 9% of its gdp on healthcare and everyone is covered (including half of Europe according to some).

 

Questions:

 

Why do Tories think moving towards a more American-type system (market-driven private provision) is a better, more efficient system?

 

And why do Tory voters agree with them?

 

Although I won't be voting Tory for the forseeable I did last time so if I may reply:  

 

I've read that the US has far better outcomes in certain areas of healthcare (cancer in particular springs to mind) and they don't have anything like the issues with waiting times.  However I agree entirely that it's wrong every citizen isn't automatically covered which is the great thing about the NHS.

 

For me healthcare in UK should be free at the point of delivery and paid for from general taxation, the issue is whether a monolithic NHS is the best means to deliver that or whether introducing more prviate provision into the state system could or would drive up standards.

[thetrees]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

In fairness you need to pay for quality, but then the amount of Unite drongos that are bring fast tracked for Labour nominations suggests that quality is in short supply.

 

Out of curiosity, why would you turn that into an anti Labour point?

It wasn't. It was an anti-Unite point.

Unless you are telling me that Unite and the Labour Party are one and the same?

[drat01]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

they don't manage 50k people any more than a nurse does or a social worker. They're not worth anything like 100k a year either, IMO. for dealing with constituents, maybe 30 k max. For turning up and voting as directed by their party - about - 5k. So that's 25 grand a year value they give. Now if they were more independent of mind, voted with their true beliefs, thought for the benefit of the people they represent, not the party, then their current wages are about right. As for a payrise, not until they demonstrably prove they deserve one. No other line of public work will get 11 percent. Paying them more will not make them better.

In fairness you need to pay for quality, but then the amount of Unite drongos that are bring fast tracked for Labour nominations suggests that quality is in short supply.

Out of curiosity, why would you turn that into an anti Labour point?

It wasn't. It was an anti-Unite point.

Unless you are telling me that Unite and the Labour Party are one and the same?

pretty poor attempt to justify your stance there.

[drat01]

I notice the tory supporters and members of the party on VT are particularly quiet re the disgusting display from ids, mcvey and many tory mps yesterday re the food bank debate. Hmmm i wonder why that is?