So IPSA has recommended an 11% pay rise for MPs. Two of the three main party leaders have said they will reject the money should IPSA proceed (apparently, being an independent body, it does not need Parliament’s approval to raise MPs pay).
Guess which of the three main party leaders hasn’t said he will reject the money?
Prime Minister David Cameron has stopped short of matching the pledge by the other party leaders to reject any extra money, and some Tory MPs support the increase.
But he has said Westminster pay should not rise while others face restraint
That’s right – the man who has more or less cut the pay of every public sector worker in the UK hasn’t ruled out taking an 11% increase on his own pay.
“We are all in this together”
A lot of other MPs are calling for the increase to be dropped to 1% or less, but – as it turns out – this is not purely an altruistic move. Even if you set aside the fact that they would look bad getting this raise, there is another reason for them doing it other than maintaining their own self image.
Because the 11% raise is contingent on a cut in expenses.
So – as it turns out – some MPs are so desperate to keep their bloated expense accounts going that they will forfeit £7,000 worth of raise to do it.
In its latest report, it proposed MPs should get a £7,000 pay rise. But it said they should no longer be able to claim for:
- A £15 evening meal when Parliament sits after 1930
- Hospitality tea and biscuits
- Hotels before 0100
- Taxis home before 2300
- Contents insurance for a second home
- Installing a TV in a second home
Isn’t that generous of them? They will happily give up a pay raise as long as we keep footing the bill for them to do their job properly.
In my last job, I sometimes had to work beyond 1 in the morning, and never got the offer of a taxi or a hotel. In the job before that I sometimes worked 13 hours a day in the public service sector (at a leisure park) and I didn’t get my meals paid for, I didn’t get a taxi paid for.
But apparently because they have such “demanding jobs” (try standing on your feet for 13 hours straight with only two breaks of half an hour each, all the while being abused, confronted and generally annoyed by drunk members of the public, knowing that if you insult or are even sarcastic to just one of them you will be sacked on the spot THEN tell me you have a demanding job) they need us to pay for their contents insurance and their ability to watch TV when they get home after they have had a free dinner because they finish after 8pm.
They took this job – it wasn’t a job they were forced to do, it was one they actively campaigned to get.
So forgive me if I lack sympathy just because they might have to work late in one of the 138 days they work in a year.
The government is setting about approving plans to scrap the checks of people who want to run “free schools” (those that are set up with Taxpayer money but are privately run), allow them to arrange their own offsted visits and not bothering with petty details like actually hiring qualified teachers.
And they are using YOUR money to do this.
So if you want to set up a school to give a job to all your mates – such as your friennds in the BNP who can’t get jobs as regular teachers – then apparently it will be a great deal easier than it used to be.
Not that I would imagine why The BNP would want to set up a school so that they can educate a whole group of impressionable minds to their own warped, twisted ideology.
Mr Cameron would have us believe that you can find cheaper energy by switching to a different supplier.
That he is on the side of the customer, because he has given us a way to ensure we can get cheap energy, especially as it comes up to winter.
But when EVERY ENERGY SUPPLIER is raising their prices by more or less the same amount, what good is switching going to do?
Cameron is in the pocket of the big companies, and instead of getting them to reduce prices – instead of getting them to serve the public (like they used to before his Dark Mother Thatcher privatised them all) – he is going to reward them by cutting THEIR taxes.
And when Labour say they will actually help the public by freezing energy prices, what is Cameron’s response?
Not to suggest an actual solution, but simply to attack.
Which – to be honest – is all he ever does. Not once have I ever heard him put up a credible alternative against any Labour suggestions – instead he just says “well you didn’t do much better when you were in power” or “you’re alternative is just as stupid”.
Everything Cameron has done since he came to power has been aimed at rewarding the rich and screwing over everyone else.
Making sure all his “little friends” get what they wanted out of his time in office, regardless of what it does to the rest of us.
A British woman who went missing from a US hospital more than two weeks ago has been found dead in an outside stairwell at the hospital.
Lynne Spalding, 57, had been treated for a bladder infection at San Francisco General Hospital and had appeared disorientated shortly before she disappeared on 21 September.
She was was not found until Tuesday.
The NHS has its problems, but I am pretty sure that this is not one of them.
The police will have greater powers to restrict the freedom of any individual they suspect of being a potential sex offender, under government proposals.
The restrictions – which could be used against a person never convicted – include limiting internet use and preventing travel abroad.
Breaching a sexual risk order could lead to a five-year jail sentence.
The government said the police will have greater powers to restrict “any person they judge to be a risk”.
A second type of order, for those convicted of or cautioned about sexual offences, is also proposed.
The sexual harm prevention order – which would replace sexual offences prevention orders and foreign travel orders – would last a minimum of five years and have no maximum duration. It would apply to those convicted of sexual or violent offences either in the UK or overseas.
A sexual risk order would last a minimum of two years and also have no maximum duration. It would replace the risk of sexual harm order.
Both proposed orders have wider remits and lower risk requirements than the current measures in place.
Unless I am reading this wrong, it basically means that you can be publicly tarred with the brush of a child abuser without any actual evidence.
So if the government, the police or anyone else want to stitch you up – make sure that no one ever takes you seriously again – all they need to do is slap you with one of these orders – something they can do without actually convicting you of anything – and you’ll be done. A national joke that no one will ever listen to again.
And it’s a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT that is doing this. The article makes no mention of Clegg or anyone else trying to stand up to the Tories wanting to do this.
The only objection comes from The Law Society.
Richard Atkinson, who chairs the criminal law committee of the Law Society, told BBC Radio 4′s PM programme he was concerned about the move.
“Of course, a great deal of stigma is attached to anyone who has such an order made and if the process of obtaining these orders is less than that is needed for a conviction then that’s a very worrying departure from our normal standards,” he said.
So – you might think you aren’t a child abuser, but once these laws are in place, then what you think won’t really matter.