|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 14, 2014 20:18:58 GMT
Remind me why it is that so few people bother to vote?  And they have the common effrontery to accuse the unions of the same level of response in industrial ballots. e&oe |
|
|
|
Post by nob on Jul 14, 2014 22:28:25 GMT
Ahh a trade unionist. Watch the paddy zoom in on this one, well done Joe. Respect, BTW do you know Arthur.  |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 15, 2014 6:30:34 GMT
Would that be big hearted Arthur- the Tory plant? (well I reckon he must have been because he was a clever sort who of his own volition drove up to a brick wall in a bubble car.
e&oe
|
|
|
|
Post by petersmyth1 on Jul 15, 2014 23:06:28 GMT
Ahh a trade unionist. Watch the paddy zoom in on this one, well done Joe. Respect, BTW do you know Arthur. Some members here who don't understand the way the Commons work. If the debate is not on a contentious issue and the split won't be close what the hell is the point of filling the chamber with MPs when the result is a foregone conclusion. All 3 parties knew some welfare reform had to happen since it was too costly because of misuse. Anyone want to dispute that and say we should have kept on paying the "job disabled" people who weren't really disabled and were just lining their own pockets? Don't say there weren't any because a rough estimate reckons there was the best part of a million nationally.  |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 16, 2014 7:04:02 GMT
A discussion regarding the validity of welfare reform is a separate issue from the fact that next to no MPs were present at a vote. Those of us that aren't on benefits are paying for those kernels to be there. I expect them to be present irrespective of how yawn inducing they might find the subject under debate.
Now, see how interesting the MPs' remuneration was to them? I should have thought that an MPs' wage rise was a foregone conclusion too, but there were very few spare seats, if any. Standing room only by the looks of it.
So there must be an as yet unexplored reason why such a foregone conclusion as a "pigs at the trough" bonanza was so well supported. This will no doubt be explained to me, taking into account that no third party can ever be familiar with the mindset / conscience of all the individuals concerned whether present or otherwise on any given issue.
What was that about welfare reform?
e&oe
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 16, 2014 7:59:26 GMT
Would that be big hearted Arthur- the Tory plant? (well I reckon he must have been because he was a clever sort who of his own volition drove up to a brick wall in a bubble car. e&oe It was Nob's hero, fat Arthur. Him with the dodgy barnet, who valiantly led his troops into a war, with a battle plan that made the Charge of the Light Brigade's look like a brilliant military strategy! That Arthur! |
|
|
|
Post by petersmyth1 on Jul 16, 2014 8:16:54 GMT
A discussion regarding the validity of welfare reform is a separate issue from the fact that next to no MPs were present at a vote. Sorry Joe I don't see your point. What is the reason to go to parliament if you can't contribute meaningfully to the session. Parliament is there to govern our country and at times it will be essential that all MPs are present for a contentious party vote. Joe whether you're paid or not is only a petty jealous argument for the the commons being sparsely attended for run of the mill business. The majority of most MP's work does not take place in Westminster. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 16, 2014 8:35:46 GMT
Hmmm..we have a couple of members here who are disabled and on 'benefits'...I would be interested to hear them tell us how those reforms have ruined their lives. Y'see...the only people that I personally know that have had their lives ruined by these benefit cuts, have been made to get a job instead of sitting in the pub/bookies all day long. Completely ruined their lives it has! Call me heartless, but I just can't feel sorry for them!  |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 16, 2014 17:30:22 GMT
Apologies if I failed to elucidate my point of view to your satisfaction.
In my (admittedly simplistic) "point of view", there are only two classes. Working class and those who do not need an income. "Middle" classes should know that unexpected lack of income is a great leveller. If we did not pay the MPs then that would attract a heavily biased sort of MP demographic. Well the fact is that we do pay them a (not inconsiderable) salary in a (not entirely successfull) attempt to attract a more representative sample of candidates for election. If the MPs are not present, then they cannot be said to be representing the interests of their respective chunks of the electorate which (and I just know you are going to attempt to correct me here) is what they are paid to do. If the discussion is important enough to justify a change in legislation or a new act of Parliament, then I'm sorry to disappoint, but I do expect them to be there. I truly do not want to see anything slip "under the radar" because numbers of MPs are pre-occupied elsewhere, whether it be welfare reform or Cruise missiles. It's not their place to cherry pick, if the discussion is warranted then so is attendance. I'm sorry if that standpoint does not chime with yourself, but let's not forget that it has equal rights to be heard along with your views. Note that I have dignified you by making no attempt to imply that you are wrong in any way.
'jo
e&oe
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 16, 2014 18:45:45 GMT
Apologies if I failed to elucidate my point of view to your satisfaction. In my (admittedly simplistic) "point of view", there are only two classes. Working class and those who do not need an income. "Middle" classes should know that unexpected lack of income is a great leveller. If we did not pay the MPs then that would attract a heavily biased sort of MP demographic. Well the fact is that we do pay them a (not inconsiderable) salary in a (not entirely successfull) attempt to attract a more representative sample of candidates for election. If the MPs are not present, then they cannot be said to be representing the interests of their respective chunks of the electorate which (and I just know you are going to attempt to correct me here) is what they are paid to do. If the discussion is important enough to justify a change in legislation or a new act of Parliament, then I'm sorry to disappoint, but I do expect them to be there. I truly do not want to see anything slip "under the radar" because numbers of MPs are pre-occupied elsewhere, whether it be welfare reform or Cruise missiles. It's not their place to cherry pick, if the discussion is warranted then so is attendance. I'm sorry if that standpoint does not chime with yourself, but let's not forget that it has equal rights to be heard along with your views. Note that I have dignified you by making no attempt to imply that you are wrong in any way. 'jo e&oe BJ....you do know that old Smudger is Oirish.................don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by petersmyth1 on Jul 16, 2014 20:09:43 GMT
Jo I too am sorry if I failed to get you to grasp that if a new act or law has got all party consent why the hell does every Tom, Dick and Harry MP have to be present when there's sod all an individual MP can do? Like I said earlier most MPs do the majority of their elected duties away from parliament so why do you want them to waste time being present for a foregone conclusion? Jo they're paid to represent their constituency not to laze about in parliament when being there, on occasions, is the least productive work they can do for their electors. |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 16, 2014 20:30:06 GMT
Not sure about bj rats!
e&oe
|
|
|
|
Post by nob on Jul 16, 2014 20:44:08 GMT
Not sure about bj rats! e&oe Oh I dunnow.  |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 16, 2014 22:10:19 GMT
Any port in a storm? ;<D
e&oe
|
|
