ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Speedy

I.

Shame You don't know what You are talking about.

*MPs don't get money shoved into their hands and told that they can do what they like with it. They buy a piece of kit and Such as an all singing & dancing surround sound 42" TV system are renumerated for it - therefore not making any money out of the deal.

*MPs are not there to forward the views of their constituents. They voice the ideals of their party at election time ( Based on the views of the electorate )and the electorate vote on what they agree with. Imagine if the majority of voters wanted a privatised heallth service, ( Which the majority don't which is why it's not in manifestos ) many candidates would run on that ticket. Also, voters are fickle - they agree with one stance one day and then disagree the next.

*The internet is not safe, WANs are not safe.

*The social life and suppliers of free lunches follow the MPs - those that accept them.

My insertions red/bold.
Sorry, to add I think that to be the reverse MPs follow the free lunch and social life ( Deductible expense when they do pay )

Sven

Do you believe that the sum(s) currently paid to MPs are appropriate for the job and the/or the calibre of government we receive in return. Yes, in return because it is our money.

Originally Posted by Speedy

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Speedy

I remember reading a column by Jon Honeyball in PC Pro magazine a few years back where he was advocating the use of IT for MPs where they would remain in their constituency and vote on issues and carry out other routing tasks remotely. This would save millions on second homes\offices, travel and prevent lobbyists, party whips and other undesirables from affecting the will of the people in the political process.
This sensible idea of course would never happen as no MP in their right(?) mind would want to derail their gravy train, their parties would not want their MPs following the will of their voters and getting any of them to give up the social life\free lunches in London would be nigh on impossible.

Shame You don't know what You are talking about.

*MPs don't get money shoved into their hands and told that they can do what they like with it. They buy a piece of kit and are renumerated for it - therefore not making any money out of the deal.

*MPs are not there to forward the views of their constituents. They voice the ideals of their party at election time and the electorate vote on what they agree with. Imagine if the majority of voters wanted a privatised heallth service, many candidates would run on that ticket. Also, voters are fickle - they agree with one stance one day and then disagree the next.

*The internet is not safe, WANs are not safe.

*The social life and suppliers of free lunches follow the MPs - those that accept them.

Shall we de-construct this then?

1. The cost of MP's needing 2 offices + staff (constituency and Parliament) as well as housing will be removed. Saving millions.

2. So the electorate is irrelevant? (very Nu-Lab that one). Has anyone told them that? If so why is it minority pressure groups can have the majority overruled?

3. The Internet is safe, not that I even suggested that politicians comms will be transmitted over it. There are plenty of other lines of communications. How do you think banks, ATMs and other very, very secure communication is achieved?

4. My point is that most of the influences that want to bend UK politics to their particular will all congregate at the political bottleneck that is Westminster. If you spread out the MPs you thin out their influence.

And are you saying that politicians shouldn't spend more time working for the very people who elected them by remaining in their own constituencies for longer periods?
If the army can operate worldwide using modern IT techniques with one or two centers of control why can't central govt?


P.S. If you want to question my IT knowledge I'll point you to the magazines I write for and my own company's web site if you like
I get paid a lot of money for my opinions on IT. I suggest you listen to them.

On Your PS - yes please.

Lobbying has always gone on but offhand cannot think of any that has made an MP go against the party. On another point I never suggested that the electorate was irrelevent, just that You had things arrse about t1t. The electorate vote for the policies that most mirror their values, not that policies are made to suit the electorate. As for spending more time with their constituents, MPs are contactable whenever they are in parliament and hold regular surgeries. Again, I have never heard of an MP who was not contactable by His constituents.

Finally, since You write so much about IT, You must know the costs of setting up, running and serving such a system as You suggest. The costs of running the support services alone would be astronomical. As for using the banking system as an example - You have heard the rumours as much as I have about their losses due to the internet.

As for the forces example, do they use the facilities to have over 600 different people debating, interrupting, putting down points of order etc etc.


In my opinion it is not feasable.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Speedy

I remember reading a column by Jon Honeyball in PC Pro magazine a few years back where he was advocating the use of IT for MPs where they would remain in their constituency and vote on issues and carry out other routing tasks remotely. This would save millions on second homes\offices, travel and prevent lobbyists, party whips and other undesirables from affecting the will of the people in the political process.
This sensible idea of course would never happen as no MP in their right(?) mind would want to derail their gravy train, their parties would not want their MPs following the will of their voters and getting any of them to give up the social life\free lunches in London would be nigh on impossible.

Shame You don't know what You are talking about.

*MPs don't get money shoved into their hands and told that they can do what they like with it. They buy a piece of kit and are renumerated for it - therefore not making any money out of the deal.

*MPs are not there to forward the views of their constituents.They voice the ideals of their party at election time and the electorate vote on what they agree with. Imagine if the majority of voters wanted a privatised heallth service, many candidates would run on that ticket. Also, voters are fickle - they agree with one stance one day and then disagree the next.

*The internet is not safe, WANs are not safe.

*The social life and suppliers of free lunches follow the MPs - those that accept them.

[My bold].... And that's where you are completely wrong, and also explains why you are wrong. The 'constituents' are the electorate. The electorate vote for their MP's depending on how they feel that MP will represent their views.
No wonder you so often seem to have your head up your own arrse.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Sven

Do you believe that the sum(s) currently paid to MPs are appropriate for the job and the/or the calibre of government we receive in return. Yes, in return because it is our money.

No, I don't think that the job of an MP is commensurate to the salary they are paid, although I think Your evaluation is low. Nor do I think that the government should get the salary they do - nothing to do with the calibre, just the job involved.

But then, I don't think that executive directors salaries are commensurate with their jobs either

Originally Posted by Chuffit

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Speedy

I remember reading a column by Jon Honeyball in PC Pro magazine a few years back where he was advocating the use of IT for MPs where they would remain in their constituency and vote on issues and carry out other routing tasks remotely. This would save millions on second homes\offices, travel and prevent lobbyists, party whips and other undesirables from affecting the will of the people in the political process.
This sensible idea of course would never happen as no MP in their right(?) mind would want to derail their gravy train, their parties would not want their MPs following the will of their voters and getting any of them to give up the social life\free lunches in London would be nigh on impossible.

Shame You don't know what You are talking about.

*MPs don't get money shoved into their hands and told that they can do what they like with it. They buy a piece of kit and are renumerated for it - therefore not making any money out of the deal.

*MPs are not there to forward the views of their constituents.They voice the ideals of their party at election time and the electorate vote on what they agree with. Imagine if the majority of voters wanted a privatised heallth service, many candidates would run on that ticket. Also, voters are fickle - they agree with one stance one day and then disagree the next.

*The internet is not safe, WANs are not safe.

*The social life and suppliers of free lunches follow the MPs - those that accept them.

[My bold].... And that's where you are completely wrong, and also explains why you are wrong. The 'constituents' are the electorate. The electorate vote for their MP's depending on how they feel that MP will represent their views.
No wonder you so often seem to have your head up your own arrse.

OK, lets use a hypothetical. Skipton and Ripon is a rural constituency where axactly 50% support hunting with hounds (remember this is fictional) and 50% think it is barbaric. If David Currie HAS TO support the views of His constituents - which does He choose.

How does He find out how the majority of His constituents feel in the 3 weeks He has to convince the public to vote for Him. How does He then get His point across in the short time left to Him.

Claire Hazelgrove is the the Labour candidate. If she is to espouse the feelings of the electorate there is 50-50 chance of having exactly the same policy as Her opponent. The same with every other candidate including the Monster Raving Looney Party and the BNP. There would be no chance of a difference in policy if the anti hunting with hounds figure was 95%.

The way elections work is a party puts out a manifesto. If You like what You read of the policies then You vote for that party, if not you look for a party with policies You agree with.

That is - policies You agree with. Not the reverse.

at the end of the day MP's are bounders and Cads, they are also liars and look only at themselves.

Liberal wishy washy people will not ever get a chance to stand at the box because they dont know which side to take.

they do not deserve the pay rise of 25% however maybe 1.9-2% would be fair. they set the rules, let them live by the rules. lead by example or fook off

Originally Posted by The_Rattler

at the end of the day MP's are bounders and Cads, they are also liars and look only at themselves.

Liberal wishy washy people will not ever get a chance to stand at the box because they dont know which side to take.

they do not deserve the pay rise of 25% however maybe 1.9-2% would be fair. they set the rules, let them live by the rules. lead by example or fook off

I think the rate of inflation is adequate.