End of term report for current government

I thought you said you were going to bow out, GrannyOnce, as you were bored of the subject.

Lord Prior is a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, dj, which is as junior as a minister can get in the pecking order. But you are probably right to suggest that in Conservative Party circles he is influential because of his family connections and the jobs he has done. Thank heavens there is no nepotism in the Labour Party.

So if he is that junior, why was he given the task of trying to get the idea of paying for the health service through parliament? Would nobody more senior take it on?
I have noticed that there seem to be more and more bills starting in the Lords. Why do you think that is?

That is a very fair point!

Well said, gillt57. I agree.

£74,000 is in the top 10% of pay in the UK. There again, so is £67,400.

The government has now postponed the cap of £72,000 on social care, e.g. in care homes, until 2020. It was supposed to come in next year. They cannot afford that, but can afford to give themselves a pay rise. I know they say it's not a pay rise, just moving money around, but it alters the amount of money they have to spend.
It was a manifesto pledge. Who voted for the Tories because of this promise?

Wouldn't you expect an MP's salary to be in the top 10% of pay in the UK?

And I don't know anyone who voted for the party of their choice because of one single manifesto pledge.

Well said grannyonce and Gillt57.I have said this as well, but it doesn't go down well it seems with some others!

How would you set the salary of an MP? less than a GP, more than a tube train driver? All this anger and envy of an MP's salary is ridiculous .

It's not anger and envy of an MP's salary. It's anger that they think they do not have to have the same pay rise as those to whom they deny a pay rise.
Who was it who first said, " We are all in it together," then accepted a larger pay rise than anyone else except for bankers and CEOs?

GillT7, who is on the government front bench? How many of them have inherited wealth? How does giving them more money help things?

Good point, dj. But having raised it, are you going to tell us how many of them have inherited wealth?

The reason for a decent MP salary is to enable people who don't have inherited wealth to become MPs.

Several MPs, who don't have inherited wealth, have already said they will be giving the extra to charity.
They seem to think they will scrape by all right.

In which case why do any of them need it? Even on what they had before, they were in the top 10%.
They were the ones who said we are all in it together.

Grumppa, off the top of my head, Cameron, Osborne, Letwin, Maude, Howe. I'm sure there are more but too tired to look. I think Philip Hammond inherited a few million. Rather more than there ought to be if they are supposed to be representative of the general population.
If that's true, bags, why are there so many MPs who have inherited wealth?

I don't know a simple answer to your question, dj. It'll have a lot to do with how they are brought up and educated and what expectations they have, as with other jobs. "The Rich" have always had more political power than the poor and probably always will. The important thing for me is that in our country, now, people other than rich people can aspire to be and become Members of Parliament.

I have known very few MPs personally, but those I have known have all been the non-rich variety. That's an achievement we wouldn't have without MPs' salaries paid out of public money.

This is a separate matter from the 10% pay rise – or pay shift, as I understand it really is. But the ultimate point is that you can't pay some MPs and not others. They have to be treated equally wiith regard to salary paid from the public purse for the work they do as MPs.

I don't think the campaign to ask MPs if they are paying their "rise" to charity is a good idea.

Oh dear David! Another fail - this really must stop. You have shelved the cap on social care, how very disappointing. You must understand that people were relying on you.

David showed great imagination in quickly producing his Evel project. A good beginning but still needs a lot of work. It's to be hoped he will buckle down to it next term. He must learn the virtue of completing work competently rather than simply quickly.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/8e7dee06-d792-4140-9aad-e7dda6c3ba6f?in=21%3A09%3A44&out=21%3A26%3A42

All those promises - all that lack of planning to actually be able to put them into action. Poor management would be a polite way of looking at it. Worryingly, going forward, what can we expect from a group who appear to be unable to manage what they have promised and, because they haven't done any proper planning are going to be the "government of unintended consequences" at the very least.

We are discussing a government who after the house voted against military action in Syria sent British airmen to America to take part in military action in Syria . Why are they worried about Scots votes, they do as they want regardless

To be honest I felt that the first time around I was never convinced of their competence.

I think it is like a group of Public schoolboys being put in charge of Rag Week!!!

I'm afraid I see them more like WW1 officers Bez with an innate sense of their right to rule and a belief that all casualties are worth it for what they believe it the right way to do things.

Excellent analogy, Gracesgran. Wait for the call-up.
Going back to the poor laws, as well.

I noticed yesterday that Cornwall has been given new powers in a devolution deal. The north east cannot have new powers until it has an elected mayor.

I see here a lack of consistency, and definite favouritism in David's approach.

Does having devolved powers, as in Cornwall's case, depend on having an elected mayor? How does that work? I though mayor's were elected in cities and towns, not counties.