Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News1 min ago
MP paying his son
I've heard that a conservative MP has been found to paying his son out of his staff budget while he was at uni (and clearly not working). He paid him �45k for 17 hours a week and has been forced to pay some of it back, and there is a possibility he will be suspended for 10 days. I find this completely ridiculous, surely:
* He should be forced to pay back ALL the money
* Even if he was working, would a full time salary of �90k, �45k or �30k (depending how many years it was over) really be the right salary for a non qualified teenager?
* he should get sacked completely for abusing his position in such a way?
Shouldn't MPs want to help their residents and the country, not just use their position to fund their family? It makes me sick. Surely there are enough peoplein this country who are able to make a difference and who actually care rather than just want the money who could run it?
* He should be forced to pay back ALL the money
* Even if he was working, would a full time salary of �90k, �45k or �30k (depending how many years it was over) really be the right salary for a non qualified teenager?
* he should get sacked completely for abusing his position in such a way?
Shouldn't MPs want to help their residents and the country, not just use their position to fund their family? It makes me sick. Surely there are enough peoplein this country who are able to make a difference and who actually care rather than just want the money who could run it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Emu2005. 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.
...which is more than 85%; in fact more than 100%. It must be nice to have such a say in setting your own pay; I have often suggested I be given the same power by my employers, but they are unimpressed.
I don't know if this means Cameron is allowing the newspapers to set his policies for him; it sounds, rather, as if they have found out something Mr Conway omitted to tell Cameron and he's responded to it (after, I would like to think, asking Conway if it was correct).
But the strong reaction suggests that, so far from all MPs being on the take, this is a rare example. As usual, though, it makes it hard for the opposition to protest about government sleaze when some of them are at it themselves; and the country as a whole is the poorer for not having a proper opposition.
I don't know if this means Cameron is allowing the newspapers to set his policies for him; it sounds, rather, as if they have found out something Mr Conway omitted to tell Cameron and he's responded to it (after, I would like to think, asking Conway if it was correct).
But the strong reaction suggests that, so far from all MPs being on the take, this is a rare example. As usual, though, it makes it hard for the opposition to protest about government sleaze when some of them are at it themselves; and the country as a whole is the poorer for not having a proper opposition.
Gromit - I am fully aware of the preamble to the implementation of the Lawrence Committee recommendations - the figures are actually �1,750 and �3,250.
All this goes to prove that throwing in random facts is often nonsensical unless placed in context, such as...
When the Commons was full of Tories in 1996 they held 65 more seats than Labour.
All this goes to prove that throwing in random facts is often nonsensical unless placed in context, such as...
When the Commons was full of Tories in 1996 they held 65 more seats than Labour.
Lets not lose sight of the central issue here - which is not the amount of MP's pay or whether they should employ members of their family
The central issue is that he paid his son from TAX PAYERS money , when his son did sod all for it .
Is this fraud or what - he should be prosecuted - Joe bloggs would be
Is this the party who were baying for Peter Hain's blood , not too long ago ?
' People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' springs to mind
In my opinion this is far more serious than the Peter Hain case
What made me laugh was another tory party MP on the radio earlier , stating that this isn't a serious matter , but rather a witch hunt .
Talk about hypocrosy .
The central issue is that he paid his son from TAX PAYERS money , when his son did sod all for it .
Is this fraud or what - he should be prosecuted - Joe bloggs would be
Is this the party who were baying for Peter Hain's blood , not too long ago ?
' People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' springs to mind
In my opinion this is far more serious than the Peter Hain case
What made me laugh was another tory party MP on the radio earlier , stating that this isn't a serious matter , but rather a witch hunt .
Talk about hypocrosy .
-- answer removed --
