How weak is this government

Another point on the government losing the Gurkha vote, they lost to the Lib Dems. When a government is loses a vote (which rarely happens) it is usually on a issue they or the leading opposition brought forward - not the Lib Dems. Not meaning to disrespect the Lib Dems but they are rubbish yet this Government has managed to lose to them. I think its time for a change.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

A win for democracy

So its been proved, the system works! The vote in the House of Commons on Wednesday over the issue of Gurkha soldiers being aloud to stay in this country once they finish fighting for it, wasn't just a victory for the Gurkha's or the correct moral call, but it was a victory for democracy.
We vote in a Government and Parliament to run the country on our behalf, to serve in the best interests of the people and the country, yet sometimes this ideal gets lost. Lost in party politics and partisan ship. The nature of our parliamentary system means that the government of the time is always powerful, they will have the most MPs in Parliament, in fact they will probably have over 50% of the MPs, this allows them to force through legislation by making their MPs vote in their favour. This means that MPs (with all parties) vote for what's best for their party rather than their constituents as they are meant to.
Yet this was all put aside this week when MPs voted on Gurkha settlement. MPs voted for what was right for the country and the people of it. The Labour MPs ignored their party whips and did what was right.
The system works. Pressure groups brought the issue to the public's attention, the courts ruled against the government and now MPs voted against the government which, now has to act with the will of the nation. The system works!
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

The Gurkha's

Immigration is a hot topic usually, never mind during harsh economic times when many people hold the perception that foreigners are, "coming over here, taking our jobs." Having said that the question of whether Gurkha solder's who have served Britain should receive the right to stay here is not a question of immigration, surely it is a moral question. The government clearly recognises that these people, who have fought for Britain for years, deserve to be able to live here as those who have retired since 1997 can do, yet those who retired before '97 cannot, why is this? Surely it can't be because the Government thought that these people, who have seen their friends die beside them for this country, deserve it and it would be good PR to give it to them but to accommodate all these heroes and their dependents might be a bit hard so they just got round it by only allowing those in who retired after '97 and hope the public wouldn't notice that they had barred those before 1997, including those who fort in the Second World War. Surely not! Well the public did notice, and something needs to be done. It doesn't matter about how many might come, or how hard it would be to accommodate them, they need to be aloud in, it's the least these people who are known for the bravery, courage and loyalty deserve.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Bankers Bonus'

Recently the limelight has been focused on bankers bonus'. After the failure of many of the banks and the subsequent money from the "bail-outs" the banks have been under great scrutiny. This has shown the amount of money that the banks are paying out in bonus' annually to their staff, people see the size of the bonus bill and are outraged by its size especially as they are loosing their jobs and struggling to pay their bills, added to this that the banks have "failed" it seems these people are being "rewarded for failure".

However I believe a number of points need to be made when people consider their view on these bonus'.  Firstly the practice of having a small (relatively) and a large bonus in banking has been going on for years. A fair point to make here is that they haven't been loosing our money for years! Secondly we have to be careful not to pigeon hole all "bankers" together, do we consider everyone who works for a bank a "banker", and therefore no bankers should be given a bonus this year! Should the person who is behind the counter who counts your cash, or the receptionist at the bank headquarters or those that are just processing data not get a bonus. After all they haven't lost any money. 

Thirdly, if we say okay those people that are just doing "normal" jobs i.e. those that aren't making decisions about money, those that aren't investing the money, do we want all "banker" (people who ARE making decisions about out money or are investing it) not to have bonus'. Royal Bank or Scotland, a bank now owned over 70% by the tax payers, employes 177 000 people, of which only 500 made losses, leaving well over 176 000 people who made a profit, should these not get bonus'?

At a time when people are loosing their jobs and struggling to pay their bills it is no wonder that they are annoyed by this issue of bankers' bonus's and it's understandable. However the banking and financing industry is one that drives our economy, if we start dropping the wages payed then these talented people (and the are there just a number of them in the city are not talented and have made grave mistakes) will just go else where. Should failure be rewarded? No of course not, those five hundred people I mentioned who made a lose in RBS, shouldn't be aloud anywhere near bonus's, in fact they should be fired. Should the bosses of these banks, who gave such an un-heartfelt apology to the House of Commons, be given bonus's, no of course not, they sanctioned these actions. However should the hundreds of thousands of other people who work in the bank get bonus's? Well if they brought in a profit, whether it be just the cashier in the local high street bank or the investment banker who brought in £100 million profit, then why not?