Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And she's the Home Secretary! Are you sure you'll

> be canvassing for them next Juneish DC?


Mmm, honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe. There has to be something to get me passionate again and at the moment it's fire fighting rather than policy making so I'm feeling pretty disillusioned. Coupled with the crap I had to listen to during the London elections and I'm less than keen. But I might change my mind.


I support the party, not the government.

MamoraMan - because i seperate executive, legislature and party. The party is a much broader church. Essentially I find myself increasingly unhappy with quite a lot of the actions taken by this govt. and have come close to handing in my membership on a few occasions. What keeps me a member is the grass roots membership.


I think it's too easy to say it's one and the same. Look at the variation just on the labour benches in the commons. Are you suggesting Dennis Skinner and Diane Abbott have the same views as the cabinet? Neither do I for the most part but without coming across all Maoist, chnage has to come from within. And currently I still hope to be a part of that.


That's why I say I am a member of the Labour Party and not the government.

David - the party is the squad that the team (the cabinet) is picked from. The party picks the leader and it picks the team and it debates the policies. It can rid itself of the leader and the team if it thinks fit, so I don't agree that you can separate the two.


If the party had Denis Skinner's policies it would not be in power, ever. Kinnock, Smith and Blair modernised the party. Anyone who agrees more with Skinner than these 3 modernisers then perhaps agrees with an outdated socialism.

As with Carnelli I think senior members of the government are underpaid.


On the expense malarkey, it seems pretty clear to me that the second home allowance is to fund a London presence that's necessary to represent your constituency at votes/negotiations.


In that sense the constituency house should always be the primary home, and the London the secondary. The expenses should only be applied to the secondary in that they allow the MP to reside in a manner befitting their station whilst away from home. This doesn't include the purchase of furniture by the MP: although furniture may be purchased if it represents better value than rental it would remain the property of the exchequer.


Video rental whether pornographic or otherwise could be considered an ordinary cost of living unaffacted by the MP's representational role and would not be expensed, neither would food outside of their official capacity.


No expenses should be paid on the primary home, these should be paid by the MP as an ordinary cost of living.


I see no reason why government wouldn't fund constituency offices, nor why the government wouldn't fund expenses incurred in MPs going about their duties. I see no reason why members of the family shouldn't be employed in the MP's team. It's the MP's responsibility to ensure they're doing a sufficiently good job to get him/her re-elected.


I don't think it's plausible to expect people who take such senior roles in our government organisation to take bus or train - there are significant security issues. It wouldn't be expected of mid-ranking business types either, simply on the basis that it limits their ability to do their job.


I don't understand why this couldn't be made clear, and legislate accordingly?

THere is however, a problem with career politicians. Paying politicians more as DC suggested will not, automatically, ensure a higher calibre of politician. There's a long waiting list of wannabe politicians at the current rates of pay.


I've suggested before that there should be a minimum experience requirement for MPs - getting elected at the age of 21 with a background of school life and university politics is not good for the necessary breadth of knowledge and experience the House should have available.


Similarly there should be a maximum term to an MP's career unless he / she becomes a minister / shadow minister. To be able to spend 25 years as a foot soldier on the back benches voting with the whips again reduces the variety and breadth of experience.


I have no problem with paying Ministers more appropriately - nor with providing them, and general MPs, proper recovery of expenses incurred - provided the scope of such expenses is similar to those in other walks of life - ie genuine "out of pocket" costs incurred in the interests of the role. Not for bath plugs, TVs, cushions etc.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> THere is however, a problem with career

> politicians. Paying politicians more as DC

> suggested will not, automatically, ensure a higher

> calibre of politician. There's a long waiting list

> of wannabe politicians at the current rates of

> pay.

>

> I've suggested before that there should be a

> minimum experience requirement for MPs - getting

> elected at the age of 21 with a background of

> school life and university politics is not good

> for the necessary breadth of knowledge and

> experience the House should have available.

>

> Similarly there should be a maximum term to an

> MP's career unless he / she becomes a minister /

> shadow minister. To be able to spend 25 years as a

> foot soldier on the back benches voting with the

> whips again reduces the variety and breadth of

> experience.

>

> I have no problem with paying Ministers more

> appropriately - nor with providing them, and

> general MPs, proper recovery of expenses incurred

> - provided the scope of such expenses is similar

> to those in other walks of life - ie genuine "out

> of pocket" costs incurred in the interests of the

> role. Not for bath plugs, TVs, cushions etc.


With views like this and the many other imminently sensible and properly thought out ideas you often post it always baffles me how you can possibly support the current Conservative Party.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> David - the party is the squad that the team (the

> cabinet) is picked from. The party picks the

> leader and it picks the team and it debates the

> policies. It can rid itself of the leader and the

> team if it thinks fit, so I don't agree that you

> can separate the two.

>

> If the party had Denis Skinner's policies it would

> not be in power, ever. Kinnock, Smith and Blair

> modernised the party. Anyone who agrees more with

> Skinner than these 3 modernisers then perhaps

> agrees with an outdated socialism.


Mick - you misunderstand me. I'm not a supporter of Skinner et al (although his anti bankers schtick is pretty popular thesedays) but used him as an example of how the Party encompasses a wide variety of views. I disagree with my/this govt. Not because I'm some unreconstructed socialist but because, too often, they have lacked the courage to be radical and pushed a real social-democrat agenda when they could have. Coupled with some unpleasant civil liberties failures it's left me cold.


However I know that a lot of members feel the same as I do and that we/they are fighting for change. I would like to see the NEC return to it's more powerful past and for conference motions to pass into policy more rountinely. Unfortunately most of this is like turkeys voting for Xmas.


If you want to debate this particular point on party vs govt further PM me as it's well off the topic and I can bore you rigid with 3 years study of political party apparatus. Yawn.

With views like this and the many other imminently sensible and properly thought out ideas you often post it always baffles me how you can possibly support the current Conservative Party.


Rather like DC, and despite what I said in response to him, I support the party - I believe in the wider aims of traditional conservatism. Coming from a libertarian / humanist background I personally seek a smaller, less intrusive, government with far greater freedom of action / thought and responsibility held by individuals. The Conservatives aren't there yet - but they're the closest to this, possibly impossible, ambition.

MamoraMan - I think we've discussed this idea of limited terms before and I do find it interesting. However, it does strike me that some incredibly important work is done by those backbench MPs who either never aspire to, or never reach, ministerial level.


Even if we ignore all the valuable constituency work, which is essentially what an MP is meant to do - represent the constituents needs, then the role of select committees warrants attention.


These are committees which look at govt. performance specific areas of dept. policy. They are staffed entirely by non-ministerial politicians who can bring vast amounts of experience to the table. Sometimes this is from outside knowledge but sometimes through longevity.


It would seem unfair and rather rash to remove an effective backbench politician due to their completion of two terms when both their constituency work and committee expertise is unrivalled.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...