Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can?t help thinking that we might regret this change from politicians setting their own pay.


The new regulating crew with offices secretary's salary etc will be setting the pay it will need paying for and who know if they will get it right look at the FSA and banking!


The difference between the cost of the new system and the money the MPs creamed off is marginal.


I guess its progress only it?ll probably cost us as taxpayers more as usual!

Hardly a scapegoat - the election of Michael Martin and his subsequent performance since 2000 were both disgraceful. The Labour majority voted him in out of tribalism not because, as should be the case for a Speaker, he was the best, most impartial, experienced, knowledgeable and representative member of the house who could ensure all parties and members received a fair hearing in debate.


There have been some poor Speakers in the past but Speaker Martin was down there in the 10th decile with the worst.


That said it is a symbolic gesture that is far from the only action necessary but it was a necessary preliminary to fuller and more effective action.

It would appear slightly incompetent bloke.


There will be MP?s who?ll fall on their swords too.

The cry for Blood is loud.


It?s a great distraction from the Credit Crunch.


The simple cost efficient solution would be to just give all of them a max 20k a year extra if their earnings are below say 150k.



But that would be far to simple and would not lead to a new department employing even more specialists paid for by the few british Tax payers.


As I said


I fear


THIS will only COST US MORE.

Mikecg Wrote:

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

> In sumary then a bloke was made a scapegoat so

> that the MP rich priviledged feckers can get the

> money they stole via their salary.



GET BACK IN YOUR COT.........



Bad CG




W**F

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

    • Alas, poor Toadflax!  And gentle Alkanet.
    • Generally wild flowers which are indigenous to the UK are more likely to be supporting more wild life than introduced species, more commonly found in gardens, simply because wild life hasn't had time to adapt to it. Although of course many introductions which flower will be supporting pollinators more generally. (This would also be true of native as opposed to introduced tree and scrub species). And I suspect plants which are flowering over public space, even if rooted on private private, are being removed to stop them setting seed in public space. [Although many might see that as a good thing if the plants have merits of their own).
    • Good question. I think the benefit of some wild flowers is that they appear earlier in the spring and provide nectar for insects coming out of hibernation. Also, natives have evolved with the insects, some of which can only survive with certain native plants. For example, some species of  caterpillars need a specific native plant for their food. Having said that, I've seen lots of pollinators having a field day on some non native flowers. My bees love my verbena bonariensis for example.
    • Genuine question- are wild flowers/weeds better for wildlife than cultivated flowers? My cultivated flowers and their seeds attract birds, bees and all kinds of insects, maybe more so than wild flowers.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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