Kelvin Hopkins for Prime Minister
Kelvin Hopkins, the Labour MP whose constituency borders Margaret Moran’s claims just a fraction of the available second-home allowance by taking the train to Westminster from his home town.
[...]
He told The Daily Telegraph: “I am astonished at some of the stories that have emerged and I quite frankly didn’t know that all those things were possible within the rules. I’ve never had a second home so I didn’t know you could switch them.”
And his voting record ain’t to shabby either…
How Kelvin Hopkins voted on key issues since 2001:
- Voted for a transparent Parliament.
- Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
- Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards.
- Voted very strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.
- Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.
- Voted moderately against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
- Voted strongly against the Iraq war.
- Voted moderately for an investigation into the Iraq war.
- Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.
- Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
- Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
- Voted moderately for laws to stop climate change.
To Downing Street, that man.
Posted on May 12th, 2009 at 10:34am under New Labour, UK politics
| Related posts... • Pay attention at the back • Hybrid human-animal embryos and selective morality • Ginsberg’s Theorem* again |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 18 Comments |
He should be promoted to Leader of the House at the very least.
and he has been an MP for 12 years!
Hopkins is one of the very best Labour have got, along with the likes of Lynne Jones. He’s similar in many respects to the much-missed Gwyneth Dunwoody, not least regarding the railways.
Hmm, not convinced.
Isn’t it the job of an MP to know these things? He’s been an MP long enough for it to have come up for debate on several occasions, was he not paying attention to what he was voting on?
Sure, it does look like he’s a good deal to us overall, and his constituents will likely reward him for it, but not knowing you could do it isn’t half as good as knowing you could and refusing to (like a fair few outer-London MPs). The latter is principle, the former? Either stupidity or laziness I guess. Maybe ignorance inspired by principle, at the most generous interpretation.
I’d take an honest ignoramus over a dishonest one every time.
Oh, very true. But I’d rather not have an ignoramous in Number Ten. There are large numbers of MPs who are decent constituency reps who don’t aspire to be anything more (my old MP has turned down frontbench roles several times). Some of them simply aren’t up to anything more, others feel they’re best suited in that role.
Yet more are completely unsuited and best not promoted. My parents MP springs to mind, been in the house since before I was born, never been a minister or spokesman, despite aspirations. This bloke I know nothing about other than as quoted, but ignorance of how his own job is done doesn’t inspire confidence in me.
Hang on. When did ‘knowledge that you can cheat on expenses by bending the rules and claiming for things which aren’t actually expenses’ become any gauge of a man’s awareness? Fuck, *my* response to half these claims has been “I didn’t know you can do that” and “you can do that? Really?” You’d prefer if he knew how to play the system for every last penny?
Seems to me that an MP who hasn’t spent much time researching the various ways of wringing every last penny from the expenses system isn’t so much “an ignoramous” as “someone with other priorities”. Like doing his job, maybe?
[Note: I know nothing about Hopkins beyond what I've read here today. He could literally be the most dishonest man in the world for all I know. But I wouldn't call him an ignoramous just because he failed to spend time working out how best to pilfer the public purse.]
Yeah, ignoramus was a bit harsh and I meant it about his lack of knowledge about the expenses system which is actually perfectly laudable as is being a decent constituency MP. It bothers me when people point out an MP’s lack of ambition.
I don’t know much about Hopkins either but I like some of his views a lot as well as the idea that he’s too busy doing his job to spend time to work a fiddle.
Indeed! An important point that seems to get overlooked is that MPs spent time working out how to fiddle the system that should have been used to hold the Government to account.
I just think ‘Prime Minister Kelvin Hopkins’ has a nice ring to it, is all.
I’ve actually met him. He’s uninspiring, but means well. He’s also a pretty committed secularist, which is always nice.
I’ve met him many times. He’s an absolutely, 100% genuine man, hardworking, unafraid to take a stand on what he believes in. And very nice to boot. I used to see him on the train a lot. Not sure he aspires to be Prime Minister, but that’s no bad thing.
[...] Obviously this has already been discussed elsewhere; it has also been admirably pointed out that not all MPs are abusing the system, but public faith in the parliamentary process is shot to shit, and no politician is actually going [...]
i amazed to read the way this forum has gone, since when did being honest become a reason to attack anyone!!!MP or not,what has this world come too!!!
im glad kelvin is above all this scandal especially as general elections are coming up and we really need to do our homework this time to see who we want representing us as the voice in parliment,i can safely put my cross where its always gone and walk away happy.keep up the good work kelvin!!
Have you actually read this thread, jax? Who exactly has been “attacking” him? Justin used the word “ignoramous” which he almost immediately agreed was too harsh. And that’s the worst that’s been said about Mr. Hopkins here.
I find it weird how everyone immediately becomes belligerent and hyper-defensive as soon as they connect to the internet. Here we have a thread where an MP is almost universally applauded and someone shows up interpreting it as an attack. Do we all need to be filmed performing fellatio on Hopkins before it’s not “an attack”?
And even then, how long before someone insists the blowjobs were “mocking in tone”?
Am I the only one who thinks that a large amount of the apparent anger is actually fake? While the behaviour of SOME mps is disgraceful (what is it, about 60+ out of 647?), there is no doubt that it is the media which has stoked the anger and criticism to the current incendiary level. I don’t recall this kind of coverage over the Iraqi bodycount (a million and rising) or the bonusses of bankers. Or indeed over the BILLIONS shovelled into the fantasy financial sector which has wrecked the country’s economy. When you compare the amount of money claimed for MPs expenses with the ocean of cash which has been flung at banks and investment funds, its clear that we the public must stop and get a grip. Getting the expenses row in perspective would be a major step forward.
i dont like the mp………….