General Chat

In the light of recent controversy over MP's claims for expenses or donations to party funds, especially those of the leader, should our MP's retain the title 'The Honourable Member'?

No opinions?

Probably not.....! But let's not forget that it was this very government who introduced the very laws that are surprise, surprise inadequate?

There is an interesting thread on the BBC's "Have your say" which is 99% against dear old uncle Gordon Brown and his incompenent cronies.

Def NOT..................

Excuse my profound ignorance, TW (I never pay attention to politicians except when I am voting), what does the title The Honourable Member mean, and what priveleges go with it? BC XX

are you joking whats Honourable about them

Honourable member is only used when one MP is regferring to another during proceedings in the House of Commons. Right Honourable is a Privy Councilor.

It's merely tradition and I'm all in favour of carrying on tradition.

Everyone complains about MP's. How many have done anything about it? Who has met their MP to voice their concern over any issue?

All MP's hold surgerys. It's busy if more than 3 or 4 people turn up. Lots of noise, but no action. Very very few people ever put their money where their mouth is :-)

Ian

Ian, can you expand on your comment about putting your money where your mouth is?

I have voted for over 40 years both local and parliamentary elections and have only ever missed one, which was when we were moving house.

As far as I am concerned Gordon Brown is a thief of the first order. He has robbed me of thousands of pounds from my pension, and has taken more in my taxes than ever before in recent history.

Thanks for explaining that, Ian. BC

You can see their expense sheets.

http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/hocallowances/hocallowances06.cfm

By putting your money where your mouth is I mean taking an active part in influencing your MP, as opposed to voicing complaints to no avail. In other words, if an issue arises that you feel strongly about, go to see your MP or write to them. MP's will tell you that one of the hardest things they have to do is trying to get past the apathy of the average voter.

We also have the underused freedom of information act. Anyone can use it to find out almost anything you want. (not to be confused with Data Protection).

Ian

MPs should only be paid

the same amount

they give OAPs to live on

and free bus travel

That applies to all areas of life Ian,not just the politics. None of us can change anything by just moaning about it...but then thats what democracy is all about isn't it? The Poll Tax marches proved that.

However, we vote for MPs to represent US, their electorate, and I'm not happy with the idea of voting for an already well paid representative who is more than prepared to rip of even more tax-payers money as perks. Trouble is, how do we know what they are up to before we vote, they are hardly going to admit it are they?

On the premise that all politicians are corrupt, I would vote for the one whose eyes are not too close together....Can't go wrong:-)

Well you could always look at their expense sheets from the previous years, for those who are standing for re-election. If they're new there isn't really a lot you can do until the next time of voting.

BC pmsl

My Nan always said about people with their eyes too close together.

She never did like Prince Charles lol

Do we know that the published expense sheets are the honest ones though?

You can meet your prospective candidate if they are new. Ask them questions. They want you to vote for them and they will answer you. If they tell lies, you can throw it back at them at a later date when they are found out.

If you are referring to the poll tax riots as opposed to marches, then that was nothing to do with democracy.

As for peaceful marches, they dont work. Name one that has worked. Lots of publicity, no action.

Nothing was ever changed by peaceful protest. The only way to change things is by the vote or direct action. One is democracy the other is anarchy.

Ian

Ian, only a very small minority of people caused those riots, the rest of us marched to voice our opposition to the Poll Tax and did not get involved in the anarchy. Sadly that small number of anarchists spoilt it for everyone....but the Poll Tax was abolished wasn't it...so in the end it worked.

I was thinking the same Stan :-))

Im not sure if the innocent people who were caught up in the riots or those that had property damaged and destroyed would either agree or care about it being a tiny minority......there were many thousands involved in the riot which lasted for many hours.

Whatever, it was the riots that influenced the withdrawal of the poll tax, not the march. No one remembers that.

And hence it was nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. Whether it worked or not is neither here nor there - violent protest can never be justified in a democratic society.

Ian