Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts

Thursday, 14 January 2016

WHEN YOU RENT A HOUSE, YOU SHOULD TAKE CARE TO ENSURE THAT NONE OF THESE PEOPLE IS YOUR LANDLORD

The names of the MPs, who  also happen to be landlords, who think that people have no right to a habitable home for rent.

  • Nigel Adams
  • Stuart Andrew
  • Victoria Atkins
  • Jake Berry
  • James Berry
  • Bob Blackman
  • Robert Buckland
  • Alun Cairns
  • David Cameron
  • Alex Chalk
  • James Cleverley
  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
  • Therese Coffey
  • Geoffrey Cox
  • Mims Davies
  • Philip Davies
  • Richard Drax
  • James Duddridge
  • Alan Duncan
  • Philip Dunne
  • Jane Ellison
  • George Eustice
  • Mike Freer
  • Richard Fuller
  • John Glen
  • Robert Goodwill
  • Chris Grayling
  • Dominic Grieve
  • Chris Heaton-Harris
  • Peter Heaton-Jones
  • George Hollingberry
  • Kevin Hollinrake
  • Philip Hollobone
  • Nick Hurd
  • Stewart Jackson
  • Margot James
  • Sajid Javid
  • Joseph Johnson
  • Simon Kirby (teller)
  • Greg Knight
  • Brandon Lewis
  • Julian Lewis
  • Craig Mackinlay
  • Tania Mathias
  • Karl McCartney
  • Anne Marie Morris
  • Sheryll Murray
  • Robert Neill
  • Sarah Newton (teller)
  • Jesse Norman
  • David Nuttall
  • Neil Parish
  • Owen Paterson
  • Rebecca Pow
  • Jeremy Quin
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg
  • Laurence Robertson
  • Julian Smith
  • Royston Smith
  • Mark Spencer
  • John Stevenson
  • Desmond Swayne
  • Derek Thomas
  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan
  • Andrew Turner
  • Shailesh Vara
  • Theresa Villiers
  • Ben Wallace
  • David Warburton
  • Craig Whittaker
  • John Whittingdale
  • Nadhim Zahawi

Friday, 31 October 2014

LET'S COME DOWN REALLY HARD ON SCROUNGERS

It should be noted that Mr Duncan Smith can live in £53 a week...
One breakfast and £124 worth of sundries...
So I'm sure you'll find that he doesn't claim this food allowance.
Will someone please tell me why I am subsiding 650 MPs on top of their salaries,
 while an OAP gets £112  + or -!
Under the Commons additional costs allowance, MPs were allowed to claim up to £400 for food every month – £4,800 a year – without having to submit receipts. 

That is until they abused the system and were caught and shamed by the Daily Telegraph for stealing vast amounts of taxpayers' money. 

This allowance has since been replaced with a flat-rate sum of £25 "for any night which a member spends away from his or her main home on parliamentary business". 

I'm not sure how they make that £160 a week.

However, on the basis that they may be away for between 4 and 7 nights a week that comes to between £100 and £175 a week.

Monday, 16 June 2014

THEY OBVIOUSLY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Clearly the good weather and the football made the
 matter of work capability tests (which are in total disarray since
Atos threw in the towel, leaving Smith in the proverbial, the best place for him)

 of even less interest to fat cat MPs.
With around 30 people a week  dying after being
 told that they were fit to work, the system is pretty much
state-sponsored murder of the poor and the sick, but out of
650 mps only 10 (that I can see) including the Speaker, bothered
 to  listen to the debate. Oh well, I suppose none of them
is likely to die after being sent back to work so why would they care?
(Not sure that is Sheila Gilmore speaking though. Looks like a bloke.)
Recently the subject for discussion was a 32% pay rise for MPs
As you can see this subject inspired considerably  more interest.
Good idea Illy!


*********************************************************************************
I'd also like to add to this post that a victim of the misery and niggardly system the the UK forces upon people is our blogging colleague the amazing Wee Ginger Dug. With a partner who suffers from vascular dementia, caring for him at home where he feels safe and loved, Paul is living from hand to mouth on what the UK government laughing calls carer's allowance.

Unlike some other carers he can't share the burden with anyone else. He doesn't have the capacity to get out and join in activities like for example, being a member of the shadow cabinet, or indeed anything else much apart from a little bit of shopping.

He writes an amazing blog though, because it's something he can do while he is in the house.

Readers and friends have urged him to set up a fund to help his partner and him to cope with what is not an easy situation.  If you like this is Big Society in action. I tend to think of it as people being decent human beings when they live in a state with is only generous to people who fund political parties.

Friday, 11 April 2014

ALL IN IT TOGETHER...HIC... HAVE ANOTHER GLASS OF CHAMPAGNE AND LET'S POP BACK TO MY OFFICE

The amount of alcohol consumed in the House of Commons may be in some way directly proportional to the incompetence and lechery that seems to pervade the place.
************
The UK government has also conceded that no deal will be done between our government and theirs over the matter of Trident.


David Mundell said that the SNP's stance on Trident was so firm there could be no negotiation over its removal. 

Negotiations on the issue are a ­"non-starter" because the SNP could never contemplate a compromise, according to Mundell.

Officially, the Coalition Government insists it will not "pre-negotiate" ahead of September's vote. And Trident was expected to be one of the biggest issues of contention in any pre-independence discussions and a major bargaining chip for a government of a newly-independent Scotland.

Scottish ministers have vowed to remove nuclear weapons as soon as safely possible in the event of a Yes vote, with a view to a deadline of 2021.

But 'experts' warn relocating the UK's nuclear deterrent from the Clyde would cost tens of billions of pounds, potentially even forcing the UK into unilateral disarmament.

Mundell said the SNP's public pronouncements on nuclear weapons, and the strength of feeling among many of the party's supporters, meant "they [the SNP] could never - if they were successful in their objectives - they could never go back on the Trident thing. There is no deal to be done."

He added: "I used to think personally, probably there would be some arrangement where Trident could stay just if they [the SNP] were given a lot of money. But now I'm absolutely clear it couldn't, because they are so committed."

Even if a Labour government were to replace the SNP after 2016, it would be a brave First Minister who would  go back on a policy that is relatively popular with the people of Scotland (between 51-60% depending which opinion poll you read)...

This may be especially true those in the Glasgow area, so close to the site of the bombs. Logic suggests that this popularity would grow after independence on the basis that it's dangerous enough having your own bombs only 25 miles down the road from your home, but to host the bombs of a foreign country, might seem to be a risk too far.

Additionally, the opportunities for oil exploration in the firth of Clyde (and the money it will bring), stopped by the London government because it would impede MoD movement, will weigh heavily even on a Labour Scottish government committed to co-operate slavishly with the UK.

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE VERY RICHEST, THANKS TO WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT

Home sweet home: Benyon's manor and with fellow Tory fatcat landlords
 Earl Cadogan, Sir Richard Drax and Lard Cavendish

When the Tories spew their bile about benefit claimants receiving £20,000 a year in benefits people should always keep in mind that 70% of that figure is in housing benefit and the claimant does not see a single penny of that money it goes straight to their landlords.

The Tories have a lot of MPs, aristos and important donors who are mass landlords and they receive an awful lot of taxpayers’ money in housing benefit whilst pointing the finger at their tenants, when they are the ones who have pocketed the majority of their tenants’ benefit claims!!

Some unemployed may get thousands of pounds in benefits but unless they are defrauding the system they still only get £73 pounds per week to live on and pay their bills and eat, the majority of the claim goes to the landlord.

So next time the Tories get you to hate on the poor just remember who the ones are that are getting very wealthy out of our benefit system and just why the Tories refuse to build social housing in England.


Remember no one gets rich off of somebody living in social housing.

Pardon the spelling in the illustration.

Friday, 27 December 2013

IF WE CAN'T HAVE OUR OWN POLICIES, I'D RATHER WE APED ICELAND'S REGIME THAN AMERICA'S


Just like America, huh?

Not one single banker went to jail; they didn't even have the decency this time round to throw themselves off high buildings. 

And when the MPs and the Lords were found to be fiddling their expenses, how many went to jail, how long for, and in what kind of jails? Few, for a short time and in the holiday home kind of jails that people can nip out for a drink, or down to the village, and get home for a birthday party.

And when a Cabinet Minister lied and lied and then lied again about his driving offenses, he spent a few weeks in an easy going regime and came out to a new job... 

What a bloody country. Why don't we have the nerve to be like Iceland?
Oh that will be because we have clout... everywhere. 

Corrupt clout, but clout none the less. 

Oh no, wait, we don't even have clout. Cameron just made that up, along with all his other lies. Because when the Syrians took other nationalities prisoner, their governments got them released.  But when they took a Brit, Wee Willie couldn't even get consular contact. Clout my backside. (And if anyone makes the obvious joke about that, Munguin will be round to see them...with his sharp teeth!)

Monday, 23 September 2013

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE LIKE?

Baker, whose wealth is estimated at £3.9m


Under the bedroom tax more than 600,000 social tenants with one or more spare rooms must either move or pay an average £14-a-week penalty.

A single parent who is not a child’s main carer will not receive extra housing benefit to cover the cost of a spare bedroom to allow the child to stay overnight.

But MPs who want their children to visit their London residence can claim extra money from their accommodation allowance to cover the costs of accommodating them, providing the child ‘routinely resides’ with them.

What qualifies as ‘routinely residing’ is up to the MP’s discretion, so they will still be eligible for the extra money if their children visit just once a month, under rules laid down by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

The scheme was branded as the ‘ultimate hypocrisy’ by Lucy Ferman, project manager for Placeshapers - an alliance of 100 housing associations.

In the 2011/12 financial year, 29 MPs who voted for the bedroom tax claimed additional expenses for the cost of dependants over and above the standard £20,100 accommodation allowance they were entitled to, costing the taxpayer £63,819.

In the same period, a further 20 who did not vote for the legislation claimed £36,864.
Nigel Adams

Conservative MP Nigel Adams, who accused the BBC of having a ‘preconceived agenda’ over its bedroom tax coverage, claimed £6,735 for costs related to dependants. He did not comment.

Climate change minister Greg Barker claimed an extra £3,313 for costs related to his dependants. His office said the claims were ‘fully compliant with IPSA rules’.

But the Northern Housing Consortium said MPs should consider whether the guidelines were still ‘right and proper’ in light of the bedroom tax policy - adding tenants would be ‘upset and angry’ that MPs did not face the same restrictions as them.

Crossbench peer Lord Richard Best said it was important that MPs had the space for their children to visit. ‘What we object to is that other people don’t. They have a penalty for having space.’

So, what we are saying is that the housing allowance for ordinary people, be they elderly, sick, disabled, or whatever, does not allow for part time usage by children, but housing allowance for the special kind of people that make up Westminster representatives does?  

Well, that's fair!

Saturday, 13 July 2013

FOXY SAYS...

From the Daily Mirror I thought this was pretty funny and worth a read, even if it has lost its topicality now.
Dear MPs,
How are you? What’s it like up there? I do hope the cuckoos and clouds aren’t bothering you too much.
Down here on Planet Earth things are a bit different. Everyone has less money than they used to, will be working for longer, and all our services – health, schools, roads, councils – are being cut back.
It’s generally accepted that we are, in fact, on our arse.
It has now come to our attention that you have been recommended for a pay rise. Not the 1% which is the most any other public servant could expect (and most of them get nothing), but 10%.
This would be offset, very slightly, by a reduction in the golden goodbyes you get when booted out of office so they are in line with what mortals receive, a downgrading of your platinum-coated pension scheme and stricter rules about free dinners.
All this has been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that was set up in the wake of the expenses scandal of 2009.
You remember, that time when you all looked really bad.
Now, the Prime Minister says the pay rise is ‘unthinkable’, Nick Clegg says he won’t accept it, and Ed Miliband says it should be no more than 1%.
Funnily enough none of them have called for a vote on the issue, or ordered their MPs to refuse it.
Some MPs have insisted they should be paid more than their current £66,396, others think it’s electoral suicide, and no f***er has mentioned the fact you had a pay rise only three months ago.
As your employer, it falls to us to decide your pay. Allow me to explain our thinking:
Your existing pay puts you in the top 3% of earners in the UK. This means 60million people would describe it as ‘a shitload’. If ‘a shitload’ is not enough for you, you might want to try the belt-tightening you have recommended for the rest of us.
Last month the 2:1 history graduate in charge of the nation’s purse-strings capped pay for public servants at 1%. He said automatic rises were ‘antiquated… deeply unfair… the private sector has to pay for it.’ If that applies to teachers, nurses, police officers and prison staff then it also applies to you.
* You would merit a similar 1% pay rise if you were doing a good job of steering the ship of state through choppy waters. Instead you behave like a bunch of argumentative teenaged drunks with the munchies driving a clown car through a minefield, while ignoring the 62million people on board all screaming at you to stop.
* It is part of your role to promote democracy and uphold the rule of law. In recent weeks you have threatened to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was drafted by Churchill and largely based on British law, failed to deport a hate preacher who left of his own accord after being invited to stay here by Michael Howard in 1994 (advised at the time by one David William Donald Cameron),welcomed a military coup in Egypt and shown yourselves, regardless of party, to be up for sale to whoever wants to purchase your tainted souls.
On top of this you have such a reputation for corruption and venality that only 65% of us could be bothered to not really vote for anyone at the last election.
* It is also your job to pass the laws which we, your employer, would like to see enacted. The idea of gay marriage enjoys greater public support than a single politician, yet still you argue over it. Most of us have no wish to penalise the disabled or their carers by whose devotion the nation saves, for each, £5,000-a-week in health costs, yet still you do so. Most of us want to know what Prince Charles thinks and keep a rough eye on the Queen’s spending, yet you pass laws that say we cannot.
* Everyone else who has to work after 7.30pm buys their own sandwiches. You can do the same.
* To claim that losing automatic payments of up to £65,000 is a cutback is somewhat cheeky, seeing as it is merely being cut back from ‘excessively disgusting’ to ‘standard for everyone else who loses their job’.
* Furthermore, with a pension scheme that has 29% contributions from the taxpayer compared to 14% for the rest of the public sector, it can probably stand a little trimming without losing any of its soft and privileged belly fat.
* Many of you moonlight. This is not on.
* Finally, your ‘independent’ standards body was set up by MPs, consists of people employed by MPs, and has its budget set by MPs. The MPs are in turn overseen by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also an MP. It is about as independent as David Cameron’s thought patterns.
All in all your performance is not what it could be, and you are subject to a personnel appraisal just once every five years. No matter how appalling you are at your job, you generally lose it only if your line manager is more unpopular than the other line managers.
In short you have a fairly cushy job and to complain you might lose the associated free dinners is, frankly, insulting.
There is an argument that we would have better politicians if we paid you more. Seeing as enriching you by means of an enormous salary, generous pension and a free house has not achieved this, it is difficult to see how extra cash would help.
We do however need politicians, so here are a few suggestions for your future pay and conditions which, if agreed, could bring you year-on-year salary increases.
* Sleep in a dormitory like every other public servant who has to live away from home. You expect the military, nurses, doctors and care workers to do the same; perhaps if you have to endure state housing you would ensure it wasn’t a death trap. We’d call yours The Ivory Tower.
*A salary, pension and redundancy package which is precisely the same as the national average. If you want this to improve, you will need to raise the national standard of living which is what we voted you in to do in the first place.
* Commit to a yearly public meeting with your constituents, open primaries so that anyone of merit can be selected as a party candidate without the need for financial backing from their own pockets or those of a union, and give voters the power to recall MPs when they have been disgraced. This would finally end the outrage of a politician being booted, resigning or losing the whip but clinging on to their MPs’ perks for years to protect their party from a by-election. Patrick MercerTom WatsonMike Hancock , I am looking at you.
* You would be expected to work for a rise in voter turnout, have holidays reduced to six weeks a year, take on no other employment, and spend one day a month doing community work in your constituency in order to keep your feet on the ground. Food bank, picking up litter, teaching assistant – we don’t care what, so long as you talk to actual human beings whose lives are different to yours.
Of course like every other public servant if you do not accept your employers’ pay offer you have the right to either go on strike or seek better-paid work in the private sector.
We look forward to you either manning the braziers or trying to get proper jobs. Some of you are entirely unqualified – the Chancellor used to fold towels, the Prime Minister was a PR man, Clegg used to lobby for Libya and Miliband’s never done anything else.
Still, with a skill set which includes avoidance, evasion, immorality, blatant criminality, and hypocrisy there should be a role for you in the financial industry.
We hope that you see sense, and as IPSA are asking for public feedback on their suggestions through their websiteTwitter and by email at mppayandpension@parliamentarystandards.org.uk you can rest assured that we will be urging them to do the same.
Otherwise, there is a strong chance of a lynch mob marching on Parliament armed to the teeth with rotten vegetables if you continue on your present course of snuffling right down to the bottom of the trough.
Yours sincerely,
Foxy

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

COME DINE WITH US...

Sickened as I am by the quality of debate on the independence question, I have looked elsewhere for a subject to post on... and I didn't have to look far.


As each and every one of us "ordinary, decent, hard working families up and down the land" (don't they realise how patronising that is) cuts and trims their budgets, it appears that, despite calls for them to, and their promises that they will, cut the cost of bars and restaurants in Westminster, the subsidy we pay these 650 members has, according to the Telegraph, risen to an unbelievable £5.8 million. (£8,923.08 per person per year.) For every £10 an MP spends on lunch now, the public contributes £7.60; last year the sum was £6.90.
 The menus are mouth watering, I warn you in advance, so be prepared:


Artichoke and tomato salad with truffle dressing: £2.05;
Seared breast of pigeon with aubergine purée and spiced couscous: £4.15;
Spinach, ricotta and sundried tomato pizza with a rocket salad: £2.75;
Roasted half spring chicken with stuffing: £2.95;
Risotto of pea and broad bean with goat’s cheese: £2.40;
Char-grilled rib-eye steak with hand-cut chips and béarnaise sauce: £7.80;
Green tea and white chocolate brûlée: £2.05;
Cheese board: £3.10.

And Pugin Room bar prices include a glass of malt whisky, Cointreau liqueur or Grand Marnier: £2.55; Glasses of 2009 Sauvignon Blanc or 2010 Merlot: £2.35.

And at these prices, our brave representatives do a power of drinking. They spent £1.33 million in the last financial year in the bars (£2.046.15 each). Given the subsidy, imagine what that would have been in real prices. 

But Holyrood cannot claim much superiority here. The Edinburgh parliament restaurant was subsidised by £80,000 in the last year (£620 per member).

The meal prices are equally mind blowing with smoked salmon and beetroot lax with potato blini, herb cream cheese capers and spring onions at £1.40.
and seared salmon with herb crème fraiche potatoes, braised celery and soy cucumber relish a mere £4.80.

Any restaurant on the Royal Mile would laugh at these prices. And with bar prices at less than £3 for a malt whisky, the bar is being subsidised at around £130 per member.

On average MPs are paid around £66,000 and MSPs around £52,000 per annum. With average salaries around the £25,000 mark, no one could say that they are not reasonably well paid. Surely it is unnecessary for the public to subsidise their eating, and absolutely unnecessary to subsidise their drinking! Something to think about if we are really "all in it together".

However, the laugh of the week has to be our favourite nut job, the Sarah Palin of English politics, Nadine Dorries, who tweeted about the state of the Westminster restaurants:


Erm, we are, you silly old sausage!

Thursday, 31 March 2011

DEVINE JIM JOINS THE FEW SCAPEGOATS THAT KEPT THE BIG GUNS SAFE


Jim Devine has been sent to the pokey for 16 months, which means 8 months in real money.


He stole thousands of pounds from us to fund his drinking habits, having been advised by another unnamed Scottish MP that it was the done thing. (In my opinion he should have been told that it was 10 years if he did not spill the MP’s name. There were only 58 other Scottish MPs and his allegation casts a slur on all of them, most particularly the Labour ones.)


We should also remember that when he was caught out the slimy wee toad tried to blame his administrator, Marion Kinley, for stealing £5,000 from him and then he sacked her. Interestingly, when she took him to an industrial tribunal she was found to be innocent, and was awarded £35,000, which had not paid by the court's deadline. Ms Kinley now plans to send the bailiffs into the House of Commons to sieze £30,000 from his resettlement grant which had been frozen by Bercow, pending the outcome of his trial.


Just how despicable is Jim Devine? On a scale of 1 to 10, my opinion is around 6, remembering that we would have to rank murderers, rapists and paedophiles higher, and Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Joe Stalin and other genocidal maniacs even higher.


But thanks to the Telegraph's investigations it has been shown that over half our MPs had stolen money on expenses. And more than 300 were allowed to 'repay' their false expenses claims, including David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. So why is it that little, fat, sad, drunken, losers are the only ones that were taken to court and prosecuted.


Surely no one believed that the grander beasts actually made mistakes and didn’t mean to steal; I certainly never did, especially when it was revealed that all the paperwork relating to Tony Blair’s expenses were shredded before he left Downing Street!


Wednesday, 26 January 2011

JUST WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS DOING FINE, IT HAD TO GO AND SNOW...


The economy shrank last quarter, but according to Mr Osborne it was because of bad weather. So that will be fine, you’d think. When the warmer weather gets here everything will be back to normal.

But you’d be wrong, according to Mr King, the governor of the Bank of Britain (or that part of Britain that counts). This is going to be a hard year, says he. Inflation will raise and wages will fall again (except for bankers, MPs and the royal family), unemployment will soar, apart from the aforementioned people, who appear to get a by on that too.

We need to tighten our belt and support the government on this, says Mr King (why has he not yet got a title?), because he thinks both they, and he, are right in these matters.

I, of course prefer the theory illustrated so effectively by his own people in the banking industry. When they were worried that there would be no bonuses for them, they arranged for pay rises of up to 50% to compensate; then when they found that the government had only been joking about the bonuses, they kept the pay rises and the bonuses as well.

So with higher fuel, higher taxes, higher domestic fuel, higher food prices, higher clothing prices, higher prices on imported good (almost everything) because the pound is falling faster that the snow that so upset the economy, and lower wages, life in looks like a real holiday (and even they will become more expensive as the pound plummets) as the warmer weather comes our way. A spokesman for the government said that we all have to buy into this because we are all in it together.

You could not make this up.

Pic: Poor wee Georgie can't even afford a hair cut.




Monday, 23 August 2010

NO MORE BACK DOOR TAXES PLEASE


When the Conservatives won the election one of the first things that was announced was an end to the ‘war on motorists’.

So they promised a ‘fuel price stabilizer’ which would reduce tax when petrol went up, but ensure that the treasury, and not the motorist, profited from any small drop in the price of petrol and diesel at the pump.

There was to be no more money for speed cameras, although existing ones could be maintained by road safety partnerships (whatever they are). However, the Treasury would still take the money from the fines, thank you!

Clamping was to be a thing of the past in England as it has been for 20 or more years ago in Scotland.

Now Eric Pickles has told local councils in England that they must find new ways of raising revenue that cannot be blamed on the government. (Hum... Eric, is that not taxation by the back door... you know, stealth taxes that you have been criticising the last lot for?)

One of the schemes which is interesting councils (of all political shades), is another war on motorists.... a tax on parking at work. The Labour government gave councils in England the right to raise money by charging companies for their parking spaces. This has never been used..... Until now.

I hasten to remind everyone that this is an English matter, but ideas like this could travel to Edinburgh.

Many people rely on their cars to take them to work. In some cases people need to be various different places in the course of a day. Waiting for buses is not a sensible use of employees' time.

There are others who travel into towns for work. Life is hard enough without having to get up at 5 o'clock to get 2 or 3 buses. (Yes, I know folk travel from Brighton to London, but that is for salaries in the £100 and £200 thousand a year bracket. In Dundee they would have to do it for £10,000!) People drop their children
off at school, or at child minders, sometimes in the opposite direction from their workplace. They need their cars.

For others, I suppose, it is a matter of convenience, another half hour in bed; no ‘walk and wait’ in the pouring rain on a cold January morning; no sitting (or standing) next to a soap dodger, or someone who drank half a bottle of whisky last night, or who just hasn’t got a tooth brush.

No waiting for the bus that doesn't come or goes past the stop because it's full. No looking at your watch and thinking ...oh nooooo....

It’s another tax on companies, and one that many would be obliged to pass on to their employees. Probably all their employees, even the ones that do wait for buses.



Motorists already have so many expenses. Running a car is not for wimps, and the taxation for cars pays for a lot more than the roads system. I agree with the Tories. We need to end the war on motorists.... and this is not the way to do it.


PS... Does anyone know what MPs and Lords pay for the use of their exclusive car parking facilities at Westminster?


Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Brown Freezes Top Pay as MPs Receive 1.5% Increase

Gordon Brown has announced that he is going to freeze the pay of top civil servants, judges, generals and doctors to save £3 billion in defiance of the recommendations of an independent salary review which recommended small increases.

The armed forces will get a 2% rise and junior doctors will also be given a small increase.

In what seem to me to be a blatantly electioneering a speech to the City audience Brown announced his intentions to freeze the pay of senior civil service staff, military, the judiciary, senior managers in the health service and the pay of consultants, GPs and dentists.

He says that the measures will save money immediately and by 2013/14 save more than £3 billion.

He also announced that the Budget will be in two weeks’ time on March 24, which suggests that the election for Westminster will be held on May 6. The Times predicts that manifestos will be published during the week beginning April 12 and the controversial presidential debates on Thursdays each of the three full campaign weeks.

The Times suggests that Brown, along with Mr Mandelson, Balls and Ed Miliband, have looked at the possibility of holding the election earlier but have rejected it.... presumably on the basis that May 6 coincides with the English council elections and there is only so much politics the average Englishman can stand.

The pay freeze for the “top” people was justified by a Cabinet Office spokesman suggesting that it was right that senior staff should show leadership.

However, Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the First Division Association, said that the government was insulting hard-working public servants by rejecting proposals from the independent review body to raise the minimum pay for senior civil servants to address long-standing anomalies.

I’d be the last to advocate pay rises for the so-called “top” people. After all many already earn vast amounts that put them on a different planet from the rest of us. They will trot out the old chestnut that they could earn more in the private sector, which begs the question..... why don’t they go do that if the money means that much to them?

However, it’s a bit rich that Brown is prepared to over-rule the pay increases recommended for these people and let the MPs’ increases go ahead. And it is farcical for the Cabinet Office to suggest that senior staff should show leadership whilst MPs bury their snouts deeper in the trough.... AGAIN.

Incidentally, I was pleased to read in the Courier that Dundee East’s SNP MP Stewart Hosie has announced that he will not benefit from the pay increase, but will instead give the money to local charities. Labour’s Jim McGovern, MP for Dundee West, has declined to take his pay rise.

I think that both these men should be congratulated on their stance, and I hope that many other members will follow their good example.




(Pictured is Bill Cockburn CBE Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body)