Dear Editor,
Before we get any more hot and bothered over the latest controversial statement of MP Everald Warmington, perhaps someone should determine just how much "benefits" he — or any other MP — is capable of denying non-voting constituents.
Surely he was not suggesting that he has, or could, deny statutorily regulated "benefits" such as medical treatment at hospitals, entry to primary or secondary schools, student loans for tertiary education, PATH, NIS, NHT, or government workers' pensions. These seem to cover most of the main "benefits" available to taxpayers. Perhaps I am naive, but I am not aware that the receipt of the above depends on any MP.
Apart from the scraps from the table of the Constitutency Development Fund, perhaps what Mr Warmington meant as "benefits" were the usual discretionary "blys" that constituents seek from all MPs: job recommendations, moving a file from the bottom to the top of a pile, help with funeral or school expenses, etc, many of which are met from the MP's own pocket.
In every polity worldwide, from capitalist to communist, discrimination in the dispensation of those kinds of discretionary "benefits" is in favour of governing party supporters over neutrals or political opponents. Your readers would have a hearty chuckle if any of the other 62 MPs asserted otherwise. That, unfortunately, is the nature of the partisan political beast in an imperfect world.
All I discern Mr Warmington to be really saying is that he has inserted another level of discrimination in the dispensation of these discretionary "blys"— voter in preference to non-voter.
A story good for a few days' headlines, but not much else.
Errol W A Townshend
Ontario, Canada
ewat@rogers.com
What 'benefits' can Warmington really withhold?
-->
Before we get any more hot and bothered over the latest controversial statement of MP Everald Warmington, perhaps someone should determine just how much "benefits" he — or any other MP — is capable of denying non-voting constituents.
Surely he was not suggesting that he has, or could, deny statutorily regulated "benefits" such as medical treatment at hospitals, entry to primary or secondary schools, student loans for tertiary education, PATH, NIS, NHT, or government workers' pensions. These seem to cover most of the main "benefits" available to taxpayers. Perhaps I am naive, but I am not aware that the receipt of the above depends on any MP.
Apart from the scraps from the table of the Constitutency Development Fund, perhaps what Mr Warmington meant as "benefits" were the usual discretionary "blys" that constituents seek from all MPs: job recommendations, moving a file from the bottom to the top of a pile, help with funeral or school expenses, etc, many of which are met from the MP's own pocket.
In every polity worldwide, from capitalist to communist, discrimination in the dispensation of those kinds of discretionary "benefits" is in favour of governing party supporters over neutrals or political opponents. Your readers would have a hearty chuckle if any of the other 62 MPs asserted otherwise. That, unfortunately, is the nature of the partisan political beast in an imperfect world.
All I discern Mr Warmington to be really saying is that he has inserted another level of discrimination in the dispensation of these discretionary "blys"— voter in preference to non-voter.
A story good for a few days' headlines, but not much else.
Errol W A Townshend
Ontario, Canada
ewat@rogers.com
What 'benefits' can Warmington really withhold?
-->