Jacqui Smith

[AllforNun]

Hey jacqui can you claim some money for the nunhead regen zone to get started ! the executive have been stealing the interest on the money put aside in 2002 for their mates in ED for years ! Yo go girl.........

smash the liberals !

[david_carnell]

???? 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.

[Marmora Man]

David C - how can you separate party & government. One makes the other.

[david_carnell]

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.

[Mick Mac]

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 Anyone who agrees more with Skinner than these 3 modernisers then perhaps agrees with an outdated socialism.

[Huguenot]

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?

[Marmora Man]

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.

[Canning]

I love Jacqui, she has done more to raise the profile of home sec than anyone else since the suffergettes blew up Lloyd George's house. And I thought Humph was having a go for no real reason. If I was Jacqui I would have him duffed up by the secret police!

[Brendan]

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.

[SteveT]

Should she remain in her job?

[david_carnell]

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.

[Marmora Man]

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.

[david_carnell]

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.

[Marmora Man]

DC - have replied on a new thread Restructuring Houses of Parliament