| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:MPs expenses | |
| Posted by: | James Dixon | |
| Date/Time: | 21/05/09 12:14:00 |
| Fraser, Thank you, and as always from you a very thoughtful response. I can't come up quickly with a comprehensive reply, but my instant thoughts are along the lines that the BASIC salary of a UK MP [excluding any expenses] is none too exciting in a competitive environment, when the economy is flourishing [which it is not at present, anywhere in the world], and in the long term Westminster must attract people of calibre. There is a risk here that unless we are very careful, ten years down the line Parliament will consist, on the one hand, of a few very rich people who can afford the lifestyle out of their own pockets, and on the other, many MPs who are career politicians, and who have little experience of the so-called 'real world'. I can't accept your simplistic 80% / 20% argument. Are the laws which constitute the "80%" actually more important [however defined] than the "20%"? We can't accept UK MPs living off a salary of one-fifth of their present figure, which implies less than £20,000 per annum, much less than, say, a bus driver. In any event, laws emanating from Brussels contain a mixture of those some of which some of us like, and some of us don't like. Very seldom is much mention made of the former. Just because there are laws from Brussels which we don't like does not mean that "Brussels" in itself is the root of all evil; "Westminster" might well have had to pass such legislation at a later date in any event. This is all in the realms of theory; so are your abstract "80%" and "20%" concepts. |