Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    So instead of people actually trying to sort out a problem, they should just give up and resign?
    No, you're right. The best thing is obviously that when someone has shown themselves to be incompetent or dishonest they should most definitely be the ones to stay on to fix whatever problems exist that they caused and should never be removed from their job.

    I'll try and remember this advice. That way I can start stealing money from the till or start breaking stuff and when my boss complains I'll just tell him that I shouldn't "give up and resign" but "I should stay on to sort out the problem" or "I should just get on with the job".

    Genius.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather let the investigation get underway so that people's names are cleared and so that the "guilty" people are named whilst they're still in office and about to get re-elected/sacked rather than once they've quietly retired/escaped when nobody cares. They also need to restore our faith in MPs by correcting the rules.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I'd rather let the investigation get underway so that people's names are cleared and so that the guilty people are named whilst they're still in office and about to get re-elected/sacked rather than once they've quietly retired/escaped when nobody cares. They also need to restore our faith in MPs but correcting the rules.
    bingo
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    No, you're right. The best thing is obviously that when someone has shown themselves to be incompetent or dishonest they should most definitely be the ones to stay on to fix whatever problems exist that they caused and should never be removed from their job.
    But they haven't been incompetent or dishonest! They've claimed what they can under a flawed system. They've never claimed that they weren't claiming expenses, so there's no dishonesty, and what they've claimed says nothing of how good they are at a job - especially when an aide would fill it in much of the time.

    Stop trying to claim they're stealing. Theft is taking things you're not entitled to. By law, they were entitled to these expenses. It's just those rules need changing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    But they haven't been incompetent or dishonest! They've claimed what they can under a flawed system. They've never claimed that they weren't claiming expenses, so there's no dishonesty, and what they've claimed says nothing of how good they are at a job - especially when an aide would fill it in much of the time.

    Stop trying to claim they're stealing. Theft is taking things you're not entitled to. By law, they were entitled to these expenses. It's just those rules need changing.
    This might be true for some of the MPs but it certainly isn't true of all. How can it be neither incompetence or dishonesty to claim expenses on a mortgage you don't have or to claim expenses for double the council tax you pay etc. If it is their aids who are incompetent why haven't they been fired?

    And I don't recall hearing many MPs saying that they took what they were entitled to. They have been saying that these expenses were a "mistake" made under a "flawed system" etc. If they said "Look, we're entitled to it so we're bloody well taking it" (and a couple did) you're point may stand. But all I see is dishonesty. These people taking what they can because they can and thought they'd get away with it without anyone knowing.

    While it might not be technically stealing there is no way that those MPs didn't realise that the public would not be best pleased if they ever found out. They took what they could thinking no one would find out. And if the reality is that they genuinely believed that Joe Public wouldn't care about the expenses fiddles they were up to then that's probably worse.

    Simple reality - the MPs who have "flipped" or made ridiculous claims etc should all go. We don't need an investigation to "restore trust". Investigations are to cover things up and stall public feeling on an issue. But the issue here is a simple one, dishonesty among MPs.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I think MPs are jumping the gun here. Yes, MP expences needs to be looked at and changed. Any MP who has broken the rules should be tried in court, MPs who seriously abused the system should be made to step down and repay what they took. We should wait for the report to change the expense rules.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And I don't recall hearing many MPs saying that they took what they were entitled to. They have been saying that these expenses were a "mistake" made under a "flawed system" etc. If they said "Look, we're entitled to it so we're bloody well taking it" (and a couple did) you're point may stand. But all I see is dishonesty. These people taking what they can because they can and thought they'd get away with it without anyone knowing.

    While it might not be technically stealing there is no way that those MPs didn't realise that the public would not be best pleased if they ever found out. They took what they could thinking no one would find out. And if the reality is that they genuinely believed that Joe Public wouldn't care about the expenses fiddles they were up to then that's probably worse.

    Simple reality - the MPs who have "flipped" or made ridiculous claims etc should all go. We don't need an investigation to "restore trust". Investigations are to cover things up and stall public feeling on an issue. But the issue here is a simple one, dishonesty among MPs.
    You can't say "you see dishonesty" but not say where they're lying. Dishonesty is a very specific claim. Either show who's lied or use the word you actually mean.

    There are two ways to remove an MP. Either someone needs to show that they've broken the law or their rules, and so they can receive the set punishment for that, or have your sat at the ballot box at the next election.

    I absolutely agree what they've been claiming is ridiculous. But all this ranting and raving about forcing so many MPs to go is silly as there are specific methods of removing an MP. On the general scheme of bad-but-seemingly-legal things that MPs have ignored the public on I think the Iraq war is many times worse than over-generous rules on expenses. As with expenses, the best and likely only way to punish MPs who acted in a way the public deem to be unacceptable is via the ballot box.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    You can't say "you see dishonesty" but not say where they're lying. Dishonesty is a very specific claim. Either show who's lied or use the word you actually mean.

    There are two ways to remove an MP. Either someone needs to show that they've broken the law or their rules, and so they can receive the set punishment for that, or have your sat at the ballot box at the next election.

    I absolutely agree what they've been claiming is ridiculous. But all this ranting and raving about forcing so many MPs to go is silly as there are specific methods of removing an MP. On the general scheme of bad-but-seemingly-legal things that MPs have ignored the public on I think the Iraq war is many times worse than over-generous rules on expenses. As with expenses, the best and likely only way to punish MPs who acted in a way the public deem to be unacceptable is via the ballot box.
    Well, since I don't believe them when they say they "made an honest mistake" I think that quite a large number have been dishonest. And when they go on about how the system is broken etc I consider this to be dishonest because they never had such qualms while they were using the same system to make lots of money for themselves.

    Do I take it that you are opposed to the idea of Ministers ever resigning?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Well, since I don't believe them when they say they "made an honest mistake" I think that quite a large number have been dishonest.
    This bit I can understand, though I'm more inclined to believe them.

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And when they go on about how the system is broken etc I consider this to be dishonest because they never had such qualms while they were using the same system to make lots of money for themselves.
    This is not dishonesty. I don't know how many times I can say it. It's not dishonest to not do something before and then say you don't like the current system. Unless of course they've said before they liked the system. You can consider it to be wrong, but it isn't dishonesty.

    As it happens, my belief would be that most MPs realised it was a bit too generous but didn't really think it mattered much as the amounts of money were so tiny compared to the amounts involved in their policy work. I know I'd have just looked at it and though "it needs reform but there are more pressing matters", especially with a huge financial crisis to deal with!

    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Do I take it that you are opposed to the idea of Ministers ever resigning?
    No, resignation is there choice. I just think the ranting is misplaced and won't achieve much, as I don't think minor accounting mistakes or taking advantage of an over-generous system is a big deal and there's quite specific mechanisms in place to remove an MP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    This bit I can understand, though I'm more inclined to believe them.


    This is not dishonesty. I don't know how many times I can say it. It's not dishonest to not do something before and then say you don't like the current system. Unless of course they've said before they liked the system. You can consider it to be wrong, but it isn't dishonesty.

    As it happens, my belief would be that most MPs realised it was a bit too generous but didn't really think it mattered much as the amounts of money were so tiny compared to the amounts involved in their policy work. I know I'd have just looked at it and though "it needs reform but there are more pressing matters", especially with a huge financial crisis to deal with!


    No, resignation is there choice. I just think the ranting is misplaced and won't achieve much, as I don't think minor accounting mistakes or taking advantage of an over-generous system is a big deal and there's quite specific mechanisms in place to remove an MP.
    I believe that it is dishonest because I don't believe many of them actually believe the system to be broken or rather that I don't believe many of them actually care that it is. They were caught taking as much money as they could so now they're saying all the right things. I don't think they mean it which is why I think they're being dishonest.

    And while there are seemingly more important matters that need handling I think this is more fundamental. Not the expenses system itself, that can wait. But the presence in the HoC of so many dishonest people is a problem more fundamental than any other. After all, these are the people we are hoping will sort out the other problems. But we now know just how dishonest/corrupt/incompetent they are so how can we let them get on with doing other stuff? That's my take on this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I have never used this area of the forum before, so forgive me if I'm posting a question in the wrong place, but:

    What are the labour party's views on Government funding for stem cell research?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnyofengland)
    I have never used this area of the forum before, so forgive me if I'm posting a question in the wrong place, but:

    What are the labour party's views on Government funding for stem cell research?
    We've never discussed the issue, but personally I'm all for it and I imagine many of my members would be too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    We've never discussed the issue, but personally I'm all for it and I imagine many of my members would be too.
    Aha, good stuff. Thanks for the response.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    stem cell research :yy: the more we look into it the better, its not the be all that cure everything, but i'm all for it
    Offline

    13
    Regarding constitutions, would you prepared to send two members to a committee on the subject of reform.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Wow long time since a question has been asked (or answered) here.

    Anyway - is the Labour party whipping the de-nationalisation bill?

    And why has the leader voted against when he also voted against the nationalisation bill?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Wow long time since a question has been asked (or answered) here.

    Anyway - is the Labour party whipping the de-nationalisation bill?

    And why has the leader voted against when he also voted against the nationalisation bill?
    There's no whip and we're not we're not being forced to vote against this by the Socialists or anyone else. I voted against the Socialist Bill because I thought the way they implemented nationalisation was poor and they had no figures on cost.

    I'm voting against this bill, because I'd rather see the railways in public hands - run correctly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How does the labour party think the coalition is going ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    How does the labour party think the coalition is going ?
    Very well. We've passed two bills already and I'm very pleased that the bills submitted by us received support from some Tories as well as those on the left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income 2007/8 was published by the Office of National Statistics earlier this week.

    Findings included that the poorest quintile of households pay a greater percentage of their gross income in tax than the richest (38.7% compared with 34.9%), and that their share of the total tax take has risen from 6.8% in 1996/7 to 7% in 2007/8 – despite an allegedly redistributive government being in power during that period. This is mostly down to rising indirect and stealth taxes, which tend to hit the poorest hardest.

    What comments would your party like to make in response to this?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.