The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Mps Working At Home
Please tell me this isn't true - have just read that MPs will receive an extra £10,000 for working at home. Apologies if this has been posted before but this is the first time I have read it. My question is why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by maggiebee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hancock said it in one of the press briefings last week Naomi. You can't pin that on Labour.I
It's irrelevant how much they earn, they're sportsmen, they all earn too much (Football is way below Basketball, American Football, Formula One etc), but they had plans in place to set up a charitable fund where they can donate without fanfare. Hancock nearly blew those plans out the water.
The point still remains that while others are going to be struggling while being furloughed, the MPs should not have the opportunity to earn extra.
It's irrelevant how much they earn, they're sportsmen, they all earn too much (Football is way below Basketball, American Football, Formula One etc), but they had plans in place to set up a charitable fund where they can donate without fanfare. Hancock nearly blew those plans out the water.
The point still remains that while others are going to be struggling while being furloughed, the MPs should not have the opportunity to earn extra.
was Robert Jenrick at home enough to qualify for the allowance?
https:/
https:/
Mozz, //The point still remains that while others are going to be struggling while being furloughed, the MPs should not have the opportunity to earn extra.//
But it’s alright for our footballers (unlike some from foreign clubs) to continue to rake in ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing whilst the non-players working for football clubs have to rely upon the government’s furlough scheme - aka the public purse - aka us - for support? I’d not heard about this until you mentioned it but I’ve found an original report in the Independent ….
https:/
… and you’re clearly not telling the whole story - just a garbled version of it that suits your political agenda - and I’m not pinning this on Labour - simply saying that Matt Hancock wasn’t in a position to attack bankers during that crisis so there’s little point in asking why he didn’t. Furthermore I can see no indication that Matt Hancock nearly blew plans to set up a charitable fund out of the water. He didn’t. The fund has been established. And let's face it, if footballers were obliged to forego a third of their wages they'd still be well and truly solvent and capable of giving a bit to charity.
For the record I don’t think politicians need an extra £10,000 to work from home either - and don’t forget the bonus applies across the board, regardless of political persuasion - but the comparison you’re making is not genuine - it’s politically motivated. Had this not involved a Conservative minister you wouldn’t be supporting the enormous earnings premier league footballers rake in would you? Would you?
But it’s alright for our footballers (unlike some from foreign clubs) to continue to rake in ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing whilst the non-players working for football clubs have to rely upon the government’s furlough scheme - aka the public purse - aka us - for support? I’d not heard about this until you mentioned it but I’ve found an original report in the Independent ….
https:/
… and you’re clearly not telling the whole story - just a garbled version of it that suits your political agenda - and I’m not pinning this on Labour - simply saying that Matt Hancock wasn’t in a position to attack bankers during that crisis so there’s little point in asking why he didn’t. Furthermore I can see no indication that Matt Hancock nearly blew plans to set up a charitable fund out of the water. He didn’t. The fund has been established. And let's face it, if footballers were obliged to forego a third of their wages they'd still be well and truly solvent and capable of giving a bit to charity.
For the record I don’t think politicians need an extra £10,000 to work from home either - and don’t forget the bonus applies across the board, regardless of political persuasion - but the comparison you’re making is not genuine - it’s politically motivated. Had this not involved a Conservative minister you wouldn’t be supporting the enormous earnings premier league footballers rake in would you? Would you?
Why single out footballers?
They get a negotiated income through agents.
What is needed is something across the board, from all the rich and super rich. Branson, the Rothchilds, and millionaire owners of business and bankers etc.
Also trim a bit from royalty. Easy to think of more, but not just footballers.
They get a negotiated income through agents.
What is needed is something across the board, from all the rich and super rich. Branson, the Rothchilds, and millionaire owners of business and bankers etc.
Also trim a bit from royalty. Easy to think of more, but not just footballers.
I ve said it in Brighton afore .Until this crisis is over parliament should be suspended all mp pay stopped no expenses from publicpurse .In about 14 years have an referrendum to see if we want an election in Another 14 years .Whos gonna run the country I hear you say taxi drivers and the heath workers reason we will get about and at least we will be cared about .oh let’s see who is not gonna take the 10,000 quid and go to the papers about it and charge them 14 ,000 for the story .Well I don’t care I’m gonna have a wee bet on the harness racing Sweden Have a good day you all
I'm afraid you're letting your preconceptions about my politics dictate your judgement. My motives are not political, I've been completely supportive of the current government during this crisis, and in fact, I've been more than happy to give Boris a chance since the election, and think he's done okay.
My problem is solely on Hancock singling out footballers alone while ignoring all other high earning occupations. I have no qualms about suggestions that high earners contribute more, but to single out one group seems to me like a grab for political brownie points.
//But it’s alright for our footballers (unlike some from foreign clubs) to continue to rake in ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing whilst the non-players working for football clubs have to rely upon the government’s furlough scheme - aka the public purse - aka us - for support?//
The highest earning clubs, Newcastle, Tottenham and Liverpool apart (although the latter reversed.their decision) have stayed away from furloughing non-playing staff, and those who have received a massive backlash as a result, not least from players. Their arguments were quite valid against.taking pay cuts: firstly the revenue the government receives from their wages, namely in tax contributions, would have largely offset any charitable contributions they would have received. The footballers themselves wanted a say in where their money would go, which is fair enough really, it's their money. Finally, the resented being singled out by Mr Hancock, in what was a thinly veiled attempt to turn public opinion against the players. If this had been successful, and the pay cut had been made, it would have complete derailed the players attempts to set up their own charitable scheme, which, as you said, is now up and running.
Unlike many, my reasoning is not based on "us and them" politics, but based on the evidence and news stories I saw unfolding while the events happened. I want what is best for the country, not for the government. If the government do the same, they'll get no argument from me.
My problem is solely on Hancock singling out footballers alone while ignoring all other high earning occupations. I have no qualms about suggestions that high earners contribute more, but to single out one group seems to me like a grab for political brownie points.
//But it’s alright for our footballers (unlike some from foreign clubs) to continue to rake in ludicrous amounts of money for doing nothing whilst the non-players working for football clubs have to rely upon the government’s furlough scheme - aka the public purse - aka us - for support?//
The highest earning clubs, Newcastle, Tottenham and Liverpool apart (although the latter reversed.their decision) have stayed away from furloughing non-playing staff, and those who have received a massive backlash as a result, not least from players. Their arguments were quite valid against.taking pay cuts: firstly the revenue the government receives from their wages, namely in tax contributions, would have largely offset any charitable contributions they would have received. The footballers themselves wanted a say in where their money would go, which is fair enough really, it's their money. Finally, the resented being singled out by Mr Hancock, in what was a thinly veiled attempt to turn public opinion against the players. If this had been successful, and the pay cut had been made, it would have complete derailed the players attempts to set up their own charitable scheme, which, as you said, is now up and running.
Unlike many, my reasoning is not based on "us and them" politics, but based on the evidence and news stories I saw unfolding while the events happened. I want what is best for the country, not for the government. If the government do the same, they'll get no argument from me.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
News83 mins ago
ChatterBank111 mins ago