Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[hela]

Dear teachers,

Would you please give me the meaning of the following expressions ?

"Prime Minister, you can hardly argue the case Members of Parliament voting themselves a 40% pay rise."

1) To argue the case for = justify sthg ?

Would you please give me another instance where this expression can be used?

2) voting themselves = to allot / allocate (??) oneself ?

3) entertainment allowance = money given to pay back their restaurant expenses? What else?

4) When do you use the expression "the fact of the matter is..."?

5) An independent review body = a group of people reassessing / appraising the way in which public money has been spent ?

6) "settlements" in "I believe in fair and just settlements for all working people and I include myself in that."

Thank you very much for your help.
Have a nice Sunday,
Hela

[hela]

Dear teachers,

I hope this is not asking too much: here is the text to which I made some comprehension questions and tried to answer them myself. Would you please tell me if they (questions & answers) are relevant, interesting and well constructed?

TEXT:
Interviewer: We are very pleased to have with us in the studio tonight the Prime Minister. Prime Minister we�ve been...

Prime Minister: Good evening Jeremy.

I: Good evening, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, we�ve been hearing endlessly in the media about the latest crisis that is facing your government.

PM: May I just say straight away that this is not a crisis.
I: Well, many people say...
PM: No, Jeremy, I think not... polls distinctly show that the vast majority of the population strongly support us.
I: With respect, Prime Minister, the poll I read only this morning in the Daily Sun...
PM: But surely you don�t believe a word you read in the tabloid press. No � my government fully deserves every penny of their pay rise.

I: Prime Minister, you can hardly argue the CAS for Members of Parliament voting themselves, �yes voting themselves a 40% pay rise when your government has offered nurses just 2.6%, teachers merely 1.7% and firefighters�

PM: Let me say that I greatly respect our public sector workers, they work hard and carry heavy responsibilities. However, MPs also work very conscientiously and carry burdens which just as heavy. Also�

I: But, Prime Minister, how can you justify�
PM: If I can just finish, Jeremy. The fact is that this pay rise is much nearer 20% when you take into account the many expenses which all politicians regularly incur.

I: Such as?
PM: Well, you know, �travel �air and rail fares, an entertainment allowance, their personal secretaries, all of these highly necessary for any MP. You can�t expect them to travel second class, eat in third-rate restaurants and do a first-class job. You know, Jeremy, the fact of the matter is�

I: The fact of the matter is, Prime Minister, that this pay rise is five times the rate of inflation, and lately you and your ministers have repeatedly urged workers to accept increases in line with inflation. It seems perfectly plain to me and many people that�

PM: Jeremy, Jeremy, let me explain. We set up an independent review body to look into�
I: As I understand it, Prime Minister, this so-called independent review body was made up of mainly Members of Parliament, who, with respect, can hardly be called independent.

PM: Ah, but only MPs can appreciate the particular workload of a politician. And I have to tell you that the review concluded that the effectiveness of the nation�s MPs is being severely hampered by lack of funds, and that their salaries are pathetically low compared to those people working in industry, banking and the like.

I: And what about your own pay rise, Prime Minister? Is there any truth in the rumour that you will be getting a rise of 50%?

PM: Ah now, Jeremy I came on your programme to talk about MPs� salaries, my own salary is being reviewed separately and it will be reviewed fairly. And, as you know, I believe passionately in fair and just settlements for all working people and I include myself in that, Jeremy.

I: Of course you do, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, thank you very much.
PM: Thank you, Jeremy.

Comprehension Questions:
1. What kind of crisis is the government facing / What is the latest crisis to hit the government?
= A criticism about the government�s decision to increase MPs' salaries by 40%.

2. What is shoking about the situtation?
= The fact that MPs are taking advantage of their position to vote a law that concerns them directly:

a) They have increased their salaries tremendously compared to other civil servants', such as that of nurses, firefighters and teachers who get a maximum of 2.5% payrise.

b) In addition, this increase is higher than the inflation rate while the increase of the other workers' salaries only matches the inflation rate.

3. What is the journalist implying by his questions?
= That this measure is unfair and almost fraudulent (?).

4. How is the Prime Minister counteracting the accusations?
a) MPs deserve this increase because they work very hard.
b) MPs need this increase to cover up their duty / professional (?) expenses.
c) Their income is much lower than that of those who work in the private sector.
d) Lack of money hinders their effectiveness / efficiency. (how is that?)
e) the creation of a "controlling body used as a watchdog" (correct English?)

5. Why do MPs need to get allowances on top of their salaries to be efficient in their work?
(I don�t really know how to answer...)

6. Why doesn�t the argument about the watchdog committee (?) stand the criticism?
= Because this body is not independent at all since it is formed by MPs themselves.

7. What is the last point the journalist raised to the Prime Minister?
= It�s about the Prime Minister�s own 50% payrise.

8. How does the Prime Minister react to it?
= Actually, he eludes the question. He says that his own salary, just as that of other citizens, is fairly assessed / decided (?) by a "controlling body". But as we have seen this committee (?) is formed by the very MPs he has intended to spoil / favour.

9. Comment on the tone (of speech) of the journalist and the Prime Minister.
The journalist�s tone = provocative, insisting, sarcastic (?)
The Prime Minister�s = defensive, irritated, underplaying it (?)

Can we add something else?
Many thanks,
Hela