« 'We miss him' | Main | Cameron must be first to champion the anti-politician mood »

Comments

David, the answer to your question if of course yes. If Mr Hannan was at some time in the future to be the properly and duly-elected leader of our Party then of course he would have my loyalty as such. However, if I did not like what he was doing I would of course make my feelings known behind the scenes and if things went from bad to worse I might well retire from activities or even leave the Party. As I have said on more than one occasion, I am delighted to have David Cameron as Party Leader because he represents the style and substance of Conservatism that I have wanted to see for a very long time. If others disagree that is a matter for them - but I do not approve (again as I have said before) of what I can only describe as "washing dirty linen in public" and wish certain people would not do it.

Very flexible anthropomorphism . Whatcher like at Full Moon?


I would add as a P.S. that in the last leadership contest I voted for David Cameron, but if David Davis had won I would have swallowed my disappointment and got on with the job.

"Very flexible anthropomorphism . Whatcher like at Full Moon?"

snegchui, you don't want to know....you really don't... believe me!

Thanks for your answer, Sally. Loyally is a valuable attribute. Also our friend Segchui should not sneer at the concept of teamwork; maybe he is an investment banker!

We don't have wolves where I live .... anymore.
Anyway, even more and betterer material for Graeme Archer, line up Harriet for a leading role in the film of the book once she and her motley crew are booted out. It will save them hanging out under Charing Cross Bridge.

Perhaps you should look more closely at what you wrote. There may be a future for you as a Formula One commentator.

Thank you, snegchui! I shall bear that in mind.

Oh dear. Pickles did indeed make more than a pickle out of that. If there are to be tax rises and spending cuts MPs will have to take some of the pain, at least in the short-term. Then perhaps higher pay and reduced expenses.

The problem, of course, is that many MPs (probably, mainly Labour but including too many Tories) aren't actually WORTH the pay & allowances that they get! Where else would many of them land a job that pays in excess of £60k pa, let alone the perks?

Sadly, I'm not convinced that reducing the number of MPs would necessarily help the quality situation. Even though there'd be more choice, constituency parties might still get it wrong.

However, a temporary pay cut IS a good idea; but a swift permanent cut in allowances would be even better (whatever Mr Pickles thinks).

Perhaps councillors (led by Tory-controlled authorities) ought to consider pay cuts as well? The symbolism would surely be a vote-winner.

As part of the Guido constituency, I'm rather fond of bankers (as is Guido), since I am one. Not a fan of bailouts, however.

MPs should receive neither salary, staff, nor allowances. It's supposed to be service, so it should hurt. There should be no professional politicians, only people who have had a successful career who then go to the service of the nation. Cameron is part of the problem, as is the aggrieved constituency assistant.

Your MP shouldn't be helping you in your life, and the fact that their help is required is a symptom of the disease of overweening government and regulation. Cut government back by 80% and you won't have these problems.

I'm a professional and I have to work 16+ hours and be available 7 days a week, with no additional compensation. My commute is my problem, both in its cost and distance - I can choose a cheaper flat far away or a more expensive flat closer to the office, the boss only cares that the work gets done and he gets 100% of my waking attention. 2 AM seems to be a rather reasonable time to leave the office if you're in at 9 in an executive capacity, especially given the exceptionally short weeks and that the house barely sits half the year.

The whole idea that MPs get severance is insane. They are on maximum length contracts and their performance evaluation is the election. An electoral loss should be treated as firing for cause and give absolutely no compensation from redundancy or benefits, simply a last payment and sending the bailiffs around if a grace and favour apartment is involved. Ideally all MPs would face a reverse onus prosecution after every election to prove the validity of any expenses and the performance of their departments if in Cabinet.

Conservatives are SUPPOSED to dislike government and know that the inherent flaws of man require extreme suspicion of those in power. This servile attachment to the entitlements of the political class is disgusting. We're not talking about actual aristocrats, just a bunch of bearded trots and some public schoolboys who couldn't get real jobs.

ironically with your model we would have a lot more public schoolboys and trots who have writen intellectual books which mean jack in the real world while the so called cream you hope to attact would remain in their jobs refusing to give up earning money for 5 years.

under this system it would be even further open to abuse as MPs tried to make ends meet by tacking bribes and favours from old friends in business.

The one bit of your essay i do agree with is that MPs should not get severance pay but in the same vain a banker who has managed to lead a viable business to the point of bankrupcy and as part of what appears to be nothing but a jobs for the boys culture brought the world economy to it's knees should not be able to live it up on a £700,000 a year pension.

Personally i think anyone who has been involved in the dealings that have gone over the last few years (MP'S in government as well) shoul forfeit there pension and pay back any bonus's which could then go towards paying off the national debt we are in.

I too work 16 hours plus a day at times but probably not anywhere as near the salary you are on. Had i been running the country i would have let at least one bank fail completely but guarenteed the poor bastards savings who had inadvertedly dared to trust the incompetents who were running the banks.

The left like to blame thatcherism for the problems with the banks but in actual fact they took part in a form of socialism believing they could carry on lending and borrowing money whilt taking unneeded risks that was never thatcherism as anyone who runs a household could tell you and that was the basis of thatcherism when running the british government

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker