In an editorial published on May 30, 'The Guardian' argues against “a staccato series of by-elections” in constituencies where MPs have been forced to stand down at the next election because they “will not convince anyone that the place has been fixed”. Perhaps not. But it will rid voters of the burden of supporting politicians who have plundered the public purse to their own ends, and who will be lame duck MPs – if you pardon the pun – until the general election.
Take my own MP, Gosport's Sir Peter Viggers (someone, please – take him). He has yet to surface in his constituency since the scandal broke, and is currently holed up in his French chateau. He has refused to speak to reporters. He is not going to be able to do his job as a constituency MP very well if he is too worried about local voters' reactions to set foot in Gosport. As for his role as a parliamentarian - Sir Peter sits on the Treasury Committee that castigated top bankers over their pay and bonuses. How they must be laughing into their champagne flutes now.
Whilst taxpayers are waiting for Sir Peter to step down at his convenience (not something you or I could do if we were caught fiddling our expenses), we are expected to fork out another £200,000 for his pay and expenses, a virtually tax-free payment of £32,000 to help him “adjust” to life after Westminster, and an appropriately-named ‘winding-up’ allowance of £40,000. To add insult to injury, we are then asked to hand him another £43,000 a year in gold-plated pension payments. Press reports estimate his total pension pot stands at more than £1 million. He may be able to withdraw large lump sums tax-free from that pot.
So yes, a by-election alone may not convince people that anything has been fixed. But throwing an MP like Sir Peter out on his ear, forcing him to forfeit his golden pay-off and pension, and stripping him of his knighthood would be a good start.
You're right, but they had been given a nod and a wink that since their salaries were low compared to an equvivalent profession(G.P., dentist, headmaster, Colonel in Army, Wing Commader in RAF, Commander in Nvavy, top civil servant, and so on) then they could top up their incomes without having to deal with the public approbium of awarding themselves £100,000 + p.a, believing the public would protest strongly. Knowing they would find it impossible to get such a pay level (with minimum expesnes such as transport only) through, they were happier to get their pay increase by the back door, as they wouldfd being sharp operators by the nature of the professional politician.
ReplyDeleteThe deputy editor of the Telegraph, asked directly by David Dimbleby, on the Question Time where they were booed -- the panel included Minges Campbell (large claim for interior decoration...), Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Teresa May for the Conservatives -- to state his salary, refused to do so. We all know he must be on at least £200,000 a year, with an enormous expense account. These are the people who the M.P.s mix with ever day.
I can't really get worked up about his duck island, his expenses or that he will have a fat pension. What really gets me going and makes me sick is that the fact that the good people of Gosport have repeatedly voted him in, even though the bloke has none absolutely nothing for Gosport.
ReplyDeleteYou just need to look back at how Gosport compared to neighbouring Fareham 35 years ago when Viggers was first elected and how the two towns compare today.
35 years ago Gosport had better shops, a better cinema and was generally a better place to live. Gosport has been in decline over the entire period of time that Viggers has been MP whilst Fareham has steadily been improving in big steps. Viggers’ greatest campaign has been to try and save Haslar, but has got nowhere with this.
What people of Gosport should be furious about is the fact that he has taken money for over a 1/3rd of a century at tax payers’ expense and done a fat zero for the people that put him there.