Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:35 am  

Nadine Dorries has had to apologise to the House for failing to declare her income from appearing in that silly TV programme about nonentities whining in a mock jungle. Apparently, her fee was paid to her company, Averbrook, from which she took a £10,000 dividend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24902813 I wonder if she is related to the Nadine Dorries who claimed, back in June, that she had "not personally benefitted" from appearing on that programme and that anything from which she would benefit was declared on the register of MPs interests? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22746273 Dorries is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire and, despite a string of investigations, a period during which the party whip was suspended, frequent outbursts of criticism against (inter alia) the speaker, the cabinet and the party leadership, has nonetheless been reselected to defend the seat at the next election. One has to pity Conservatives in Mid Bedfordshire, if they want to vote Tory, they have to vote for Dorries. However, this sort of thing is by no means limited to Tory MPs. Constituency associations and party central offices frequently impose a candidate onto a constituency. We need a better system, otherwise we might as well just vote for a list.

Nadine Dorries has had to apologise to the House for failing to declare her income from appearing in that silly TV programme about nonentities whining in a mock jungle. Apparently, her fee was paid to her company, Averbrook, from which she took a £10,000 dividend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24902813 I wonder if she is related to the Nadine Dorries who claimed, back in June, that she had "not personally benefitted" from appearing on that programme and that anything from which she would benefit was declared on the register of MPs interests? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22746273 Dorries is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire and, despite a string of investigations, a period during which the party whip was suspended, frequent outbursts of criticism against (inter alia) the speaker, the cabinet and the party leadership, has nonetheless been reselected to defend the seat at the next election. One has to pity Conservatives in Mid Bedfordshire, if they want to vote Tory, they have to vote for Dorries. However, this sort of thing is by no means limited to Tory MPs. Constituency associations and party central offices frequently impose a candidate onto a constituency. We need a better system, otherwise we might as well just vote for a list.

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:26 am  

In many cases that already exists, most people will simply vote for a colour rather than the person standing in their constituency who could be a complete scammer who's personal desire is to scam as much money as possible out of the next five years and keep their head down.

As I've mentioned many times in the past at the last election I voted for a person who had a previous history of working in the constituency and the city, he lives in the constituency (which helps) and still gets involved with his local party on council issues, his office also responds to emails and he has assisted me on two occasions in putting me into contact with senior offices when I had problems with government agencies - I don't really care about his party policies (which enrages some people I know) its his work ethic for his constituency that I vote for.


At the same time I do wonder if parliament is full of scammers or if actually the rules on expenses are just so bloody complicated that the poor loves just don't understand them, claiming for heating in your stable block does seem a bit far-fetched though, if my employer offered to pay for the rent or mortgage on a dwelling in another part of the country because they needed me to work there I confess that my first thought wouldn't be "Oh good, I can get the horse's heating bills paid for as well".

Why do horses have central heating anyway, I thought they lived in fields ?

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:04 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

In many cases that already exists, most people will simply vote for a colour rather than the person standing in their constituency who could be a complete scammer who's personal desire is to scam as much money as possible out of the next five years and keep their head down.

Unfortunately, I live in one such place. Leeds West is one of safestet Labour seats in the country (I'm sure I've read that it is second, behind Wigan?).

I'm not for a second suggesting that Rachel Reeves is a scammer out for as much as she can get from the system, but I've been very unimpressed with her in campaigning for local issues that would benefit this part of the world.

I couldn't care less about what colour rosette she wears, but it would be nice for her to feel like she has to earn her votes - and her keep.

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:10 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

In many cases that already exists, most people will simply vote for a colour rather than the person standing in their constituency who could be a complete scammer who's personal desire is to scam as much money as possible out of the next five years and keep their head down.

As I've mentioned many times in the past at the last election I voted for a person who had a previous history of working in the constituency and the city, he lives in the constituency (which helps) and still gets involved with his local party on council issues, his office also responds to emails and he has assisted me on two occasions in putting me into contact with senior offices when I had problems with government agencies - I don't really care about his party policies (which enrages some people I know) its his work ethic for his constituency that I vote for.


At the same time I do wonder if parliament is full of scammers or if actually the rules on expenses are just so bloody complicated that the poor loves just don't understand them, claiming for heating in your stable block does seem a bit far-fetched though, if my employer offered to pay for the rent or mortgage on a dwelling in another part of the country because they needed me to work there I confess that my first thought wouldn't be "Oh good, I can get the horse's heating bills paid for as well".

Why do horses have central heating anyway, I thought they lived in fields ?

What bothers me is when, if someone wants to vote for a party, they have to vote for someone whose only redeeming feature is that they are a member of that party.
Constituents have no say in the candidate's selection.

Regarding expenses, I'm convinced that all the IPSA stuff and supposed rules are mere window-dressing.
If thousands of companies up and down the land can organise expenses of their employees, it can't be that difficult.
When I was working in Westminster 5 days a week for about eighteen months, my own employer, for example, didn't allow me to claim for a second home (such as funding a self-fulfilling property speculation in the likes of Lord North St, Gayfere St and Smith Square ... you can't move around there for politicos coining it, current house prices being between two and three million pounds).
Instead I was pretty comfy in a decent hotel and claiming dinner and travel, all of which was fair enough and a familiar scenario for most people who have worked away from home.
I was reimbursed solely for genuine expense incurred in the pursuance of my job ... the notion of the company paying for my family to live there too or nominating which of two homes should be maintained at public expense would have been laughed at. Why should it be different for MPs?

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:01 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Why do horses have central heating anyway, I thought they lived in fields ?

Because you can't feed them Ready Brek.

I think the Tories have stumbled upon ways that the hard-pressed, average man & woman can save money during this time of austerity. It's simple really, just stop heating your stables and clean your moat yourself. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:12 pm  

She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?

She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone?

[DaveO]

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:24 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

What bothers me is when, if someone wants to vote for a party, they have to vote for someone whose only redeeming feature is that they are a member of that party.
Constituents have no say in the candidate's selection.

If people want a say then they should join the party. Then you get one.

So if people have a particular political view they can attempt to influence who their candidate for MP is.

It might be the person selected is not the one you favour but if you are completely at odds with the politics of the candidates from the other parties you have a simple choice. Vote in a way that may end up helping a government be formed you are opposed to or accept the fact you took part in the process of candidate selection, move on, accept nothing is perfect but at least you took part in the process and vote in what you see as the national interest.

It's no excuse to vote for an MP who is good at dealing with local issues who is going to vote to privatise the NHS (to give an example) when it is within everyones reach to actually at least try and influence the selection of a candidate locally from the party they would want to see govern nationally.

People vote the way they do for some bizarre reasons. Relatives once voted Tory because they felt John Major was a "strong leader". I was baffled by that and tried to explain you aren't voting for him anyway but for a set of polices that in my view would do the country no good.

It's the same here and there is no excuse not to get involved if people feel that strongly.

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:40 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

Unfortunately, I live in one such place. Leeds West is one of safestet Labour seats in the country (I'm sure I've read that it is second, behind Wigan?).

I'm not for a second suggesting that Rachel Reeves is a scammer out for as much as she can get from the system, but I've been very unimpressed with her in campaigning for local issues that would benefit this part of the world.

I couldn't care less about what colour rosette she wears, but it would be nice for her to feel like she has to earn her votes - and her keep.

According to her twitter timeline she appears to have been very involved in local issues

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:26 pm  

BartonFlyer wrote: She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone? Meanwhile, many home carers do not get paid for travelling between visits – that's their own time, apparently.

BartonFlyer wrote: She could possibly go for a job as a Police & Crime Commissioner, then you can get paid for travelling to work it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24903805 Gravy train anyone? Meanwhile, many home carers do not get paid for travelling between visits – that's their own time, apparently.

Re: Dorries - a case for de-selection? : Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:58 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Meanwhile, many home carers do not get paid for travelling between visits – that's their own time, apparently.

I'm sure I read somewhere that carers had expense accounts.