Westmorland and Lonsdale MP warns of tuition fee rebellion (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Westmorland and Lonsdale MP warns of tuition fee rebellion
3:29pm Tuesday 12th October 2010 in Ballots
WARNING: Tim Farron MP
WESTMORLAND and Lonsdale MP Tim Farron has warned of a Lib Dem ‘rebellion’ if the coalition Government allows university tuition fees to rise.
The former Lancaster University administrator said he and other Liberal Democrat MPs would vote against any attempt to implement Lord Browne’s higher education funding recommendations.
The peer’s report on HE finance, published on Tuesday, argues that universities should be allowed to charge what they like for degree courses. Currently fees for undergraduates are capped at £3,290 a year.
But Mr Farron said the move would be ‘totally unfair’ to young people from relatively modest backgrounds, saddling them with tens of thousands of pounds in debts.
“I’m not saying the issue would scupper the coalition, but it would certainly lead to a rebellion,” said Mr Farron.
He said it would potentially need only 27 Lib Dem MPs to rebel for a bill to be defeated in the Commons.
It would not the first time Mr Farron has taken principled stand in opposition to an official party policy.
Two years ago he lost the job of Lib Dem Defra spokesman after voting for a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty.
“Raising the cap on tuition fees is only a proposal at the moment and I hope to successfullty argue against its adoption as a policy,” said Mr Farron.
“I am not doing it as a gesture, I really believe it is wrong that an average 21-year-old would be left with a debt of £20,000 to £25,000 when they leave university.”
Mr Farron said he had been ‘a good boy up to now’ and gone along with coalition policies.
“However, this could prove to be a deal breaker for me.
"I could not possibly vote for it or even abstain; I would have to vote against the measure.
“I made a promise to the young voters in Westmorland and Lonsdale that I would oppose any increase in tuition fees and I am sticking to my word.”
Meanwhile, the University of Cumbria’s vice-chancellor Graham Upton has warned that Lord Browne’s recommendations could deter prospective students if they led to ‘signicicantly higher’ costs.
“The future funding of HE and student finance will impact on the sector and individual universities and on the students in different ways,” said Prof Upton.
”At Cumbria we are committed to widening participation and opening up opportunities for potential students.
"For many of our prospective students significantly higher tuition fees may prove a deterrent to them entering higher education.”
He added that increased tuition fees would have to be used to offset the predicted cuts in public investment in HE.
Comments(46)
Ambience
says...
7:47pm Tue 12 Oct 10
TwoHat
says...
9:14pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Terry Neill
says...
11:45pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Ambience
says...
8:18am Wed 13 Oct 10
Terry Neill wrote:Well said Terry. I couldn't agree more.
According to his colleague, Vince Cable, the country’s finances can’t afford the present system. Our MP might have a little more credibility if he wasn’t one of the MPs with the largest expense claims in Parliament. In the last year for which we have figures he claimed 35k more than the average for the six Cumbrian MPs and over 57k more than Maclean in Penrith and Cunningham in Workington. He’s a man of modest abilities and meagre achievements but with a gift for self-publicity and spending public money. It’s thanks to MPs like him we are in the current financial mess.
Terry Neill
says...
9:56am Wed 13 Oct 10
Given that the country’s economic situation was well known at the time of the election and his leader was already warning of the need for swingeing cuts, I’m confused why the Libdems made their commitment not to raise tuition fees. They only reason can be that they did not expect to be in government and have to face the responsibility of finding the money to pay for it. So, they continued to act out their usual role as the fuzzy, cuddly Libdems - unsullied by office, all things to all men, masters of the faux outrage, sanctimonious and self-regarding. Westmorland deserves better than this expensive self-publicist.
wascal
says...
10:27am Wed 13 Oct 10
Utter
says...
11:00am Wed 13 Oct 10
We are so lucky to have him. He is principled and just ace!
Keep up the good work Tim
TwoHat
says...
12:24pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Utter wrote:That may or may not be true, but as long as he remains in the same party as the hypocritical fraudsters who have traded their principles to prop up this unholy alliance, he is tarnished by association.
Well Terry and Ambience are obviously well off the reservation! Tim is the best MP our area has ever, ever had. David Maclean was the man who wanted to keep his expenses claims secret - because they were so excessive.
We are so lucky to have him. He is principled and just ace!
Keep up the good work Tim
Terry Neill
says...
1:17pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Utter
says...
2:52pm Wed 13 Oct 10
David Maclean flipped his home and then sold his second one for a profit after getting the taxpayer to improve it. So I refuse to take lessons from him.
Just be honest and admit Tim is the best MP we have ever had. I mean didnt the Tory vote go down here? Oh yeah it did - by like 6%!
gadgetgadget
says...
3:13pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Tim IS the best MP this area has EVER had within living memory.
Those like Terry Neill (who incidently doesn't appear to have been resident here very long - from his posts elsewhere on this site) should remember that the previous incumbents (from a certain blue party) did very little for the area compared to our current MP. Comparing MPs expenses in the way described above is unfair because it doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of work that they do for the area - and especially when using an outdated set of expenses from 2001 (NINE years ago) and fails to take into account what £85k then is worth now !!
Unfortunately people like Terry also forget that in order to get (or try to get) results (especially when this area has all the problems of urban areas + the complications of being a rural area as well) more work is needed thus more cost !! Can't have it both ways !! If Tim wasn't working hard for the area and it's constituents then people like Terry might have an argument - but IMO they don't !! It's not the first article that Terry has used to attack Tim's expenses !!
If anyone doesn't like the work that Tim & his staff do for the area : vote for someone else come the next election - in the meantime most of us like (as seen by the extended majority he received in the last general election) what he does for us !! That's democracy in action.
As for tarnished by association that applies to ALL politicians not just MPs - it could be argued also that Tim is potentially tarnished by the actions of (so called) Lib Dems in local councils. IMO that is potentially more damaging to Tim than the parliamentary coalition (which isn't ideal (by a long way) but is better than having no Lib Dem influence in government whatsover) because Tim has distanced himself (prior to and during the coalition) certain policies that he doesn't believe represent his constituencies views - this article is an example of one such occurance. How many other MPs do that and just tow the party line ??
Before tarnishing him purely by default association perhaps a bit more thought is required.
Me : I like to vote for people who are right for the area not necessarily which national party they represent i.e based on what they do not who they are or which party they represent !!
gadgetgadget
says...
3:44pm Wed 13 Oct 10
http://www.thewestmo
rlandgazette.co.uk/n
ews/general_election
_2010/news/8102274.W
estmorland_and_Lonsd
ale_candidate_on_liv
e_TV/
and
http://www.thewestmo
rlandgazette.co.uk/n
ews/general_election
_2010/news/8105319.B
aroness_praises_Lib_
Dem_candidate_on_Ken
dal_visit/
This article isn't about Tim's expenses but about him not agreeing with current proposals about tuition fees !!
Ambience
says...
3:51pm Wed 13 Oct 10
gadgetgadget wrote:What an epistle! Could Gadget tell me what concrete things has Mr Farron done for us? His PR team are the ones working hard. Farron is all 'singing and dancing'. He makes a lot of noise. Gets his picture in the Gazette and smiles sweetly. But exactly what has he achieved. The cancer unit issue at Westmorland General had been agreed by McMillan nurses long before Farron became involved. All he does is wait until someone else has done the work on an issue then up he pops claiming it was all down to him.
Utter is right !! Tim IS the best MP this area has EVER had within living memory. Those like Terry Neill (who incidently doesn't appear to have been resident here very long - from his posts elsewhere on this site) should remember that the previous incumbents (from a certain blue party) did very little for the area compared to our current MP. Comparing MPs expenses in the way described above is unfair because it doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of work that they do for the area - and especially when using an outdated set of expenses from 2001 (NINE years ago) and fails to take into account what £85k then is worth now !! Unfortunately people like Terry also forget that in order to get (or try to get) results (especially when this area has all the problems of urban areas + the complications of being a rural area as well) more work is needed thus more cost !! Can't have it both ways !! If Tim wasn't working hard for the area and it's constituents then people like Terry might have an argument - but IMO they don't !! It's not the first article that Terry has used to attack Tim's expenses !! If anyone doesn't like the work that Tim & his staff do for the area : vote for someone else come the next election - in the meantime most of us like (as seen by the extended majority he received in the last general election) what he does for us !! That's democracy in action. As for tarnished by association that applies to ALL politicians not just MPs - it could be argued also that Tim is potentially tarnished by the actions of (so called) Lib Dems in local councils. IMO that is potentially more damaging to Tim than the parliamentary coalition (which isn't ideal (by a long way) but is better than having no Lib Dem influence in government whatsover) because Tim has distanced himself (prior to and during the coalition) certain policies that he doesn't believe represent his constituencies views - this article is an example of one such occurance. How many other MPs do that and just tow the party line ?? Before tarnishing him purely by default association perhaps a bit more thought is required. Me : I like to vote for people who are right for the area not necessarily which national party they represent i.e based on what they do not who they are or which party they represent !!
It is my belief that the Tories did badly here at the General Election because they had the wrong candidate.
Utter
says...
4:17pm Wed 13 Oct 10
And the tories lost because their campaign was woeful and they have done NOTHING for our community for years. They are just anger via press release - nothing constructive, no ideas or plans. They just harp from the sidelines.
Keep up the fab work Tim - don't listen to the Naysayers!
gadgetgadget
says...
4:21pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Ambience, you need to understand without the high profile of an MP being involved in a campaign it is often harder to achieve it's aims. i.e. if it has high-profile local political backing not just a campaign group then it is more likely to succeed in it's aims. Fair enough not every campaign he's involved with gets positive results but that can be argued for every campaign can't it. But better to attempt to win than not try at all !! Would MacMillan Nurses have been able to raise the profile of the cancer unit campaign to the same local level ? Would as many people have responded if it had been kept low-key ?
Regardless of that IMO it's the casework he does that is more important to people than such campaigns though because that is mostly about getting results for individuals and families on a very practical level on a day to day basis.
It is unwise I suggest to base opinion of him just on the basis of what publicity he receives say on this site or in the local press. There is a lot of work that he (& his staff) do for local people (my family included in the past) that goes unpublicised. I'm not going to be drawn further on personal detail about that though - that's between my family and his office.
Therefore many results he achieves are not public knowledge because they involve sensitive details such as getting people houses or resolving personal disputes etc. His casework levels are a matter of public record as referred to above by Utter.
If you need concrete proof of what good work he does : perhaps instead of asking me to verify that you would be better asking people down at certain local charity centres (e.g. homeless charities) about the results he's achieved personally for them and their clients !! And that's just one example.
It's my belief the Tories did badly in the last election not JUST because they had a poor candidate but because local people appreciate the work that Tim (and his staff NOT as you state just PR individuals) does not just on high profile campaigns but for local people in general !
Ambience
says...
5:00pm Wed 13 Oct 10
TwoHat
says...
5:34pm Wed 13 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
6:02pm Wed 13 Oct 10
What I would add however is that Tim personally has a record (including on this particular issue) of standing up to the party line on the principle that the party line doesn't represent the views of his constituents. I wish more MPs (of any party) were like that and I hope that our constituents remember that in future.
I could rant for hours on the pros and cons of this coalition but won't. Sorry but I don't understand the logic of anyone thinking that their one vote will keep a party out of government under the present voting system. I'll just add that if PR (or a similar voting system) is adopted then we'd better get used to having coalitions in future !!
wascal
says...
7:51pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Terry Neill
says...
8:50pm Wed 13 Oct 10
I have also lived in different parts of the UK and been served by a number of different MPs, Labour and Conservative. Tim Farron is not the best I‘ve come across. The most expensive – yes. The most responsive and effective – no.
By the way, Utter, you asked what the 85k spent by his predecessor was worth in 2001. Well, the inflation rate between 2001 and 2009 was 33%. Our MP's expenses climbed by 110% in the same period. I’d say that was worrying.
As Wascal remarked, it’s difficult to see what benefits all his extra spending has brought Westmorland. There is often much publicity and activity but when the dust settles nothing much seems to have been achieved. As regards his work for individual constituents, all MPs do this and all have examples of where they have made a real difference to people’s lives. Few, however, are as expensive as Tim Farron.
Perhaps he should spend less but spend more wisely.
gadgetgadget
says...
10:21pm Wed 13 Oct 10
from ...
http://www.theyworkf
oryou.com/mp/tim_col
lins/westmorland_and
_lonsdale
and
http://www.theyworkf
oryou.com/mp/tim_far
ron/westmorland_and_
lonsdale#expenses
Tim Collins (Conservative) claimed £129k in 2004/5,
Tim Farron claimed £147k the following financial year BUT was fighting a hospital campaign at the same time !
Tim Farron's predecessor (Tim Collins) increased HIS expenses over a 4 year period by £44k (what did we see for that ?) from £85k in 2001 to £129k in 2004/5 - around 50% total increase !! In the short time in 2005 before the general election (11th April) Tim Collins spent in excess of £47k !
Over a comparative four year period 2005-2009 Tim Farron's expenses have increased by only £28k from their initial starting point !!
That's an increase of only around 30% - therefore who was the more expensive in RELATIVE increase terms over a 4 year period ? A: Tim Collins
Perhaps before bleating on about how inefficient Tim Farron is with his expenses - you might want to reflect on what his predecessor spent his money on (but given that you weren't in the area at the 2005 election you probably don't know (there are plenty who'll update you on that though)) and what this constituency got in return for those 4 years ! I suggest before bleating on about Tim Farron's expenses anymore you take a deep intake of breath and get some facts straight first !!
gadgetgadget
says...
10:28pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Lakeuk
says...
11:00pm Wed 13 Oct 10
We have the EU parliament where no one has a clue on what they do or who our local MEP is (downside of the PR vote)
Then there's parliament in London which comes across as a gentlemen's club, the staged PM question time, quangos looking after themselves like the wine quango, time wasting debating. Some MPs still think they are hard done by on the new expenses rules, but they just don't get that these rules are normal out in the real world. When you do have a hard working MP what really can they do to bring about the local will, parliament seems to be a place of many trying to persuade the few in cabinet with abit of you scratch my back hint hint.
County/ District Councillors - no idea what they do, come election time you'll see a photo of them pointing at a pothole. Where are they telling us what they do on a regular basis, where can you easily check up of how they've voted for us. You see Tim Farron using Facebook/Twitter, why are none of our Councillors doing the same to let people know what's going on.
Town / Parish Councilors, alot of people think they should do alot but seems their power is very limited to passing on their opinions to higher councils
The above may be misguided but hopefully demonstrates that no one has a clue what they do or can do and their needs to be more openness on how each one of them represents us
On expenses, their can always been savings. It's too simplistic to take the headline figure, you have to look at the detail if anything looks strange in the detail then ask Tim about it. There are always savings to be made no matter how small, one could be to stop posting multiples of the same letters to a household.
Terry Neill
says...
11:34pm Wed 13 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
11:34pm Wed 13 Oct 10
I also agree that looking at headline figures on expenses isn't really enough (my posts above were aimed at getting Terry Neill to recognize that his comparisons were unfair, inaccurate and biased) and why IMO continued attacks on Tim Farron from the likes of Terry without getting more info first just come across as vindictive.
I also agree that there are always savings that can be made. Sadly it's a fact of life that most organisations (including MPs offices) suffer from not always doing things the most efficient way : that doesn't mean that they are DELIBERATELY wasting money though, it may be that they just haven't recognized where the saving can be made. Only by questioning the detail can such savings sometimes be identified. What I would question is when it is stated by those organizations that just because they've done something a particular way for years that it is still the correct way of doing something. Public Sector finances with a non-carryover end of financial year budget restriction springs to mind !
Actually I am appalled that our District/County councillors don't use Facebook or Twitter nowadays when they can be done for free - Town/Parish councillors might get away with not doing so but even they should be considering it. Locally SLDC have now got a corporate interface on Facebook - why haven't the individual councillors ??
On the subject of Town/Parish Councillors - they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when other councils want to ditch certain resources but have much more limited budgets and recourse of action - seems grossly unfair and unrealistic to me !
gadgetgadget
says...
11:57pm Wed 13 Oct 10
I will pick up however on a couple of points about other constituencies that you've mentioned : they have different issues to W&L and have differing sizes of population - especially one like Workington which doesn't have issues like hill farming for example and the population in both Workington/Copeland constituencies is lower than here. But it could be argued that Jamie Reed's Copeland constituency has similar variations in local needs but certainly has a smaller number of fluctuation in both residency (during the summer months) and also visitors. Where is comparison however on the amount of casework that both of those MPs do ?
My point is that it's unfair to say that Tim Farron is more expensive here in real terms because his expenses in real comparative terms are not increasing as rapidly as his predecessor - and we certainly get more work for our pound out of the present MP on local issues compared to the previous incumbant. You've admitted elsewhere that you weren't here in 2005 so you're really not in a position to question whether what we've got now is better or worse than before. Isn't that latter point what's important to this constituency.
You've continued to question just headline expense figures from Tim Farron time and time again without seemingly endeavouring to find out the detail behind those figures. You've stated that you'll continue to do so.
As Lakeuk has rightly pointed out - without the detail it's unfair to just look at the headline figures ! Without doing so IMO that comes across as increasingly obsessional and vindictive.
gadgetgadget
says...
11:58pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Ooops !!
Terry Neill
says...
12:03am Thu 14 Oct 10
Terry Neill
says...
12:20am Thu 14 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
1:58am Thu 14 Oct 10
The workloads are different, the requirements to fulfil the needs of the constituents are different - if you look at the Workington constituency it certainly doesn't cover the same LEVEL of hill farming as W&L, it has more rural needs - W&L has greater tourist numbers, it has all the needs of the other constituencies but with added ones too.
The disparity of expenses started in this constituency when Tim Collins finally woke up and realized the amount of work he was doing for locals wasn't enough, he had to increase his staffing levels accordingly and his expenses shot up by around 50% as a result. That is evident from the figures on his record but by the time he woke up his reputation was poor for representing his constituents and he was not re-elected.
Tim Farron took over in 2005 what was at the time a constituency crying out for proper representation and proper help for it's constituents. By being an approachable and hard working MP he's now in a position where his casework load is one of the highest in the country probably because he can be relied upon by his constituents to get results for them.
More casework means more costs - it's really quite simple economics.
Unless you can prove that you could do the same amount of work for less instead of arguing on here about it - why don't you do what you say you're going to do : express your concerns and get answers to those concerns from the man himself - until then your arguments are just really based on figures that you're reading conclusions into and as I've said before you come across as just being obsessional and vindictive without real basis for the argument. You say you've asked questions about his expenses in the past - for you to continue to bleat on and on you obviously don't accept any answers given.
I'm not going to respond any more in this article to your posts because IMO you've already dragged this off-topic for your own needs (i.e. to just attack Tim Farron expenses for being expensive not whether he is value for money) and certainly not to discuss tuition fees.
wascal
says...
8:13am Thu 14 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
10:00am Thu 14 Oct 10
Lakeuk
says...
1:25pm Thu 14 Oct 10
Terry Neill
says...
3:13pm Thu 14 Oct 10
I felt it right to bring up the topic of our MP’s expenses in an article on tuition fees because, as I mentioned in my first comment, his colleague, Vince Cable, had said that he wanted to abolish tuition fees but couldn’t because of wasteful expenditure by the previous government which had led to the present deficit crisis. If MPs complain about waste it’s only fair that their expenses are subject to similar scrutiny.
wascal
says...
5:35pm Thu 14 Oct 10
BentheBorderCollie
says...
6:10pm Thu 14 Oct 10
Tim's sticking to his pre-election pledge - ok, anyone can understand that.
Vince is responding to the realities of coalition by letting the Tories have their way and whacking up fees, but structuring the deal along LibDem principles, so that the worst-off graduates will actually repay less than now, and the richest will pay more.
Both MPs can correctly state they are sticking to their principles - but the way they have chosen to do so may help explain why Vince is a minister, and Tim is a backbencher.
gadgetgadget
says...
7:34pm Thu 14 Oct 10
Ben - you're right : however we should remember that PERHAPS Tim is more comfortable being a rebellious backbencher given his publically stated reservations about the coalition.
Back off topic again - sorry ...
Wascal - I wasn't offended by your post - I understood what you were getting at even though I disagreed with it. Disagree but not offended !
Terry - I will respond even though I said I wouldn't : unfortunately regardless of what you think about my views (and trying to retain some modesty !) I'm probably in a slightly better position than some here to gauge the work that Tim has done on several high-profile campaigns having being involved in them and also having being resident in the constituency for 40+ years so in a position to give perhaps a more historical view rather than someone like yourself (no offence intended) who has not been resident here during previous MPs. Your comments about what I see Tim as are pretty near to the mark but are based on experience HERE not just expense amounts. To be clear : I don't see any reason why people can't question his expenses (indeed if there are practical alternatives they should be encouraged - and not just restricted to MPs) but I do have an issue with just highlighting totals rather than getting into the detail because there is a danger of judging someone as being "guilty before proven innocent" - a principle I don't personally agree with and is not one that anyone, I think, should encourage. Although no doubt the speed camera brigade have different views !!
Frankly, I don't believe that cutting back on say one or more MPs expenses though is going to make a big difference in the big scheme of saving money. It might set an example to others but it isn't really a practical/fundamenta
l change to the way in which public money is wasted because the amounts involved are relatively low in real terms. It's ridiculous schemes like those that e.g. SLDC have come up with that are not required NOW are perhaps better examples of how money can be saved. Regular readers will know that some of those I've highlighted in other article comments. Awaits attack from another user who hasn't commented in this article (yet) with baited breath !!
Also from "inside" experience : there is a MAJOR problem with public sector financial budgetting - there are many departments within public sector organisations that DELIBERATELY spend money around Feb/Mar each year (mainly on un-necessary projects - have a think about how many potholes get filled in around that time) JUST to retain their budget come April.
Now just think how much money can get wasted by that attitude/culture.
The example of potholes is hopefully an easy one to understand - they are often done quickly, without adequate care and then need proper maintenance within a short period of time thus spending MORE public money rather than doing the job properly the first time.
If we are going to have a proper cutback on public sector expenditure then existing cultures have to change, existing attitudes have to change and most importantly the action of wasting money in order to retain budgets has to change. The budgetting problems are caused by a principle that a department can't carry forward any money from a previous year - ridiculous and not want happens in the private sector. That is a simple change that the government can make and would save money year after year after year - plus it would cost very little to implement.
I'll not rant any more off-topic now though ... but if anyone wants to engage in my thoughts in that I'll respond !!
wascal
says...
8:45pm Thu 14 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
9:17pm Thu 14 Oct 10
My point is really that reducing his expenses is really a drop in the ocean compared to the wastage elsewhere within the public sector - any reduction of his expenses would not IMO have to affect his ability (and his office) to do casework for his constituents because that is key !
wascal
says...
11:24pm Thu 14 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
12:23pm Fri 15 Oct 10
Even if all the MPs in Westminster cut back by on average £20k PER ANNUM they would still not be paying off what we as a country pay in debt interest EACH DAY.
It would be symbolic yes but actually effective ? - I doubt it !! And certainly still less than a tea cup's worth of water in the ocean !!
The country's debt problems require much more radical solutions and especially a cutback on more significant and regular wastage of public money.
For instance and as a local example : even if Tim cut his expenses back to say £120k per annum (down approx £60k from last year) SLDC would spend more than that £60k saving in just beautifying New Road (which would probably have to be ripped up in a short period of time if Canal Head development goes ahead and thus potentially a waste of money) !!
My point being : It's not just up to our MPs to take the lead - ALL our public representatives (even at local council levels) need to change their spending strategies, stop dreaming up expensive un-necessary schemes and defintely stop spending on expensive external consultants (e.g. to stand in the street with clip-boards and produce glossy reports which are later proven to be inaccurate or incomplete - even worse to be used to try and recruit staff who already work for the same organisation - yes I'm looking at you SLDC !!) ... Cue Trevor stage right !!
If EVERY public sector organisation was capable of doing that then MUCH MORE public money would be saved than just cutting back on MPs expenses regardless of which MP we refer to !! To me that's more important a gesture and much more practical !
Lakeuk
says...
1:02pm Fri 15 Oct 10
Maybe it would be good for Farron to comment to his parties local councilors on whats expected
gadgetgadget
says...
3:06pm Fri 15 Oct 10
wascal wrote:Lakeuk - which bit of wascal's comment "It is up to our MPs to take the lead" isn't what you describe as "No one's saying MPs should take the lead" ?? Perhaps you missed that bit ?
The ocean is made up of many drops! It is up to our mps to take the lead and make the first step. Is there any evidence to suggest Tim has done this?
I do agree though perhaps it would be wise for the local Lib Dems councillors to take some initiative whether that is MP led or not. My stance is not that MPs shouldn't take a lead but doing so ON THEIR OWN we (the public) aren't, necessarily, get any real benefit from doing so unless others follow suit and change spending patterns too.
wascal
says...
5:26pm Fri 15 Oct 10
gadgetgadget
says...
6:41pm Fri 15 Oct 10
I would suggest that anyone taking a lead should not expect others to follow automatically and why it's important for other organisations to buy into the idea that they need to abandon unviable projects voluntarily rather than be forced to cutback on things that are needed.
Unfortunately locally that doesn't appear (so far) to be the case as some public representatives especially at councillor level still think that it's ok for their "pet" projects to be pushed forward.
MPs expenses ARE a drop in the ocean - some elements of them might be able to be cut back on, others might not be - that's why the devil is in the detail not the overall figure.
Therefore as well as proposing MPs cut back, wastage elsewhere in the public sector ALSO needs to be tackled and actively abandoned to make a SIGNIFICANT difference.
I repeat : I'm not saying MPs can't cut their expenses back but that without other public sector organisations following suit with their various expenditures then there is the likelyhood that the only way in which public money will be cutback is in job losses - some only now seem to be waking up to that reality.
It's surely in each organisations interests to start voluntarily cutting back rather than have it forced on them. Even MPs !
If they can all do that then the drop in the ocean (from the MPs maybe doing the cutback on their expenses) could turn into a torrent of significance BUT unless they do so the drop will remain a drop and won't make a huge difference (it might placate people like yourself or Terry) but it wouldn't make any REAL SIGNIFICANT difference whatsoever - that doesn't mean it isn't right for the MPs to so do where they can but that it needs to be seen in context.
westmerrieman says...
6:31pm Tue 12 Oct 10