Does anyone else not give a damn about Alan Duncan?

I thought that too. But yeah, pretty naive to have that chat with someone he didn't know!

(is it only me that thinks he's Alan Bstard personified!)

It doesn't help that it's August, so silly season media-wise. Great for those of us trying to get stories into the press, less good for those saying daft things on record ?

He's just a bit of a tw@t really - I don't think ti's something to resign over but I'm glad he's not representing my views in Parliament ?

He is my favourite Tory by some way, I think. Has a tendency to say silly things but is properly socially liberal, which is more than you can say for most of them.

Argh, I was RAGING at the tv over this last night because he may not have expressed himself very well, but he is, essentially, right. We will not attract the calibre of person we need for mps (mind you, some may say so what will change). The bloke who 'caught him out' was saying 'well, we don't want people in it for the money, we want people who care about the issues'. Yeah, right, and I want a yacht and a million quid and that ain't happening either.

L
xx

PLUS all this nonsense about 'how can he say these things when he is a millionair'. What do we expect? People to work for free if they're already rich enough?

L
xx

And of course these witchhunts are far more likely to penalise the more colourful characters, leaving the Commons full of identikit clones who are permanently "on-message" for fear of losing their jobs. Mind you, with salaries that low, would this be an especially big deal? ?

Isn't Duncan the only openly gay Tory MP, despite his and plenty of other people's reckoning that there are far more of his ilk on his side of the Commons benches than the Labour ones?

Must admit I don't know much about his record but it does seem a particularly stupid thing to say, adding fuel to fire for anyone who wants 'proof' that MPs have lost their grip on normality/reality.

Not a resignation offence certainly, but perhaps a reminder not to bang on about how bloody great he thinks he and his colleagues are. I like a touch of humility in my public servants. Or as the mash has it . . .

MEMBERS of Parliament are still dicks, it emerged last night.

Despite the ferocious public anger over the parliamentary expenses system and a pledge by MPs to reform it, new research suggests that many of them remain very punchable indeed.

Alan Duncan, the Tory shadow leader of the House, who has been at the forefront of his party's apologies for the expenses scandal, yesterday confirmed that he did not mean any of it and that he wants more money to buy nice things without being shouted at.

Speaking to the man who vandalised his garden, Mr Duncan warned that unless MPs were treated like Little Lord Fauntleroy, the House of Commons would soon not be able to attract money grubbing ex-oil traders like him.

He said: "I am now forced to bring in a packed lunch. It's basically a small Tupperware box with a Visa card in it.

"I then have to use this card to buy food at some French restaurant - French! - and then I have to carry a very heavy receipt all the way back to my office.

"Sometimes I have to wait days before that receipt is reimbursed, during which time I come dangerously close to dipping into the huge amounts of money I made selling oil to Pakistan during the Gulf War.

"Now you may say that bringing a packed lunch is no great hardship, but what you have to realise is that politics needs people like me, otherwise how will vast oil companies have their interests represented in parliament?"

Mr Duncan added: "I am being treated like a ***. Like an oily, greasy, grasping, selfish little ***."

Sometimes, yes.

I'm sure there are 101 other equally competent business / political types that would happily step into his shoes.

? at the DM's take.

If your priority is making money then I don't think public service is likely to be a good carer, there aren't many public service jobs that make huge bucks.

When people complain that nurses are underpaid, for example, there's always someone who says it's market forces, if people refused to do the job for that salary, the govt would have to pay more blah blah - I don't see why the same isn't true for MPs, it's not as if there aren't enough interested candidates ?

ETA ? P&P, that's made my day.

Mr JK, he is- also the first MP to have a civil partnership and a prominent gay rights campaigner.

I completely agree, Lois.

Well, there are but a lot of them are decidedly crap.

Everyone who's been bleating on about setting up dormitories for MPs in Londoin doesn't seem to realise that that would put just about everyone off the job - except those with hefty private incomes.

But all that said, I agree AD comes a across as a bit of a twat, but it's all been a bit overblown imo.

Well, Steve Jobs' salary when he returned to Apple in 1997 was the princely sum of $1 per year (it may still be that, for all I know). But I believe his ownership of Pixar and qualification for Apple stock options meant that the local soup kitchen was largely untroubled by his presence.

With which bit ?

That just because a goal is ultimately unattainable, we should give up striving for it ? That doesn't sound like you.

Also (and I realise that Lois was being sarcastic / rhetorical), it seems that upping salaries is only likley to increase the numbers "only in it for the money".

I'm with Zeb - seems like a poor solution.

Zeb, P&P, are you saying there should be means testing for MPs' salaries or that noone shoudl be paid (as it used to be)?

Can't really get my head round that either way, and I don't think the market forces argument can be applied to politicians in the same way that it is to some other jobs. There are almost certainly plenty of people in the country who would do it for free- it doesn't follow that these are the people we want running the country.

Yes, there are plenty of people wanting to become career politicians, who have no experience, for example, of working within larger corporations. I am not sure they are our best hope either

L
xx

I agree that you don't (or shouldn't) go into a public sector job for the money. And how many MPs have no other income? Not many, I would guess. (waits to be corrected)

And, fond as I am of gay rights campaigners, that doesn't automatically mean he's not a tw@t.

To represent 'the people' , particularly during a recession, you have to have (or appear to have) a firm concept of reality and he has displayed his to be sorely lacking.

Not at all (and frankly no idea what would make you think that).

It was a facetious response to a facetious statement.

I actually think he usually seems quite grounded and sensible, tbh. His remark was off the cuff and is being taken way too literally, in way that it was clearly not meant to be.

On the other hand, I fid the whole expenses row ridiculous and tiresome to start with.

L
xx

But so are lots of the current MPs, crap, that is ?

I'm not sure why setting up a building in the centre of London that offers bedroom/studies for MPs is so terribly off putting - I'm thinking centrally placed secure building, good for transport around and out of the city, designed around the inexpensive hotel end of things rather than crappy student accomodation. Although the student accomodation now built in this country is usually built around hosting conferences with decent sized desks, double beds, en suite, TVs, broadband internet etc so not exactly slumming it.

If I was working in London for long hours regularly and commuting back and forward to a constituency, I'd rather live in a serviced room/small suite of rooms than have to worry about running a second property and doing my own cleaning, washing and so on.

??

The thing that made me think that was the bit where you said sometimes people should be expected to work for free if they're rich enough. It wasn't clear from your post that you were just being facetious.

The second part was more aimed at Zebra and her "market forces" argument.

This is true ? (the crap bit)

Because most fo them spend more time in London than in their constituencies, so it does make sense for them to be able to decide where their family is going to be based, and therefore where their "second home" is going to be. They also spend so much time with other MPs, it's a bit ridiculous not to give them the option to be able to get the hell out of Westminster when they aren't working.

I'd like simply to simplify everything- pay MPs twice as much and get rid of living expenses entirely.

I've no idea why you'd think that's what I meant, nurses' salaries aren't means teseted and they don't work for free.

Lois - Something my H moans about a lot is that too many MPs look at the HoP as their career without having any experience beforehand. That's not to say that I think big business experience is necessarily the background that MPs should have, I'd rather MPs came to the HoP with a broader range of experience and knowledge.

I don't think big business is the be all and end all, but nor do I think people can be expected to do a great job when politics is the be all and end all of their knowledge base

L
xx

I was refering to this, Zebra- your point that nurses' salaries are set by market forces (ie the level at which people are happy to do the job) and your argument that the same principle should apply to MPs. The level at which one could find 600 odd people to be MPs is presumably £0- working for free- as there are plenty of people who would happily do that. However we obviously don't want those people to do the job. I don't think you can apply the market forces argument to politicians.

It's really tricky tbh because of the wide range of commutes MPs might have - I don't think one solution will fit all. Why not just look at what the costs of their job really are on an individual basis. Can't be harder than trying to persuade the public that a floating duck house is a legitimate expense ?

For example, I am cheesed off when I read of MPs who claim for a place in London and a place within an hour's commute just outside London, that's well within what most business (and other) people do daily, not an unreasonable distance. But if you live in Newcastle, or God help them, Orkney, your costs and your commute are so expensive and difficult, you're going to need more support financially and quite possibly more staff.

By the time they have faffed about working things out on an individual basis, it would 've been cheaper to use the one size fits all approach.

L
xx

I see what you're saying but the difference between MPs and nurses is that nursers aren't scrutinised and elected by the public before they get their job.

I'm not saying MPs should be paid nowt, or even paid badly, I just don't think their salaries should be paid in line with the top business positions.

Fair enough. I don't think I said anyone should be "expected" to work for free - and if it came across that way it certainly isn't what I intended.

Part of my point was that countless people can and do work for free (particularly within the charity sector), while plenty more work for well below what they are "worth" in jobs that they do because they believe in the intrinsic value of the endeavour.

Which is why I found the "so they should work for free?" comment unconstructive.

Politicians already earn a good wage, along with perks few of us can dream of (and many of them do have no real need of the money) and yes most of them work fairly hard. I just find it galling at the moment that any of them should suggest they deserve more, when almost everyone else is having to make do with less.

My main gripe was with the "well, I want x, y, z but that aint gonna happen" sentiment. There's a pretty strong chance that I'll never win a Nobel prize, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't hold myself to the same standards of good practice and governance that better scientists than I do.

Now I'm rambling, but I'm still unsure of which of Lois' points you were agreeing with.