I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
The rule change being considered by the committee, which could force more than 30 MPs – the majority Conservative, and all but one of them men – to give up jobs they currently hold, would have prevented the row about whether Paterson was entitled to use an exemption because it would have stopped him working as a paid consultant in the first place.
The Guardian missed a trick here. Surely they are almost all white men?
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
The rule change being considered by the committee, which could force more than 30 MPs – the majority Conservative, and all but one of them men – to give up jobs they currently hold, would have prevented the row about whether Paterson was entitled to use an exemption because it would have stopped him working as a paid consultant in the first place.
The Guardian missed a trick here. Surely they are almost all white men?
I think Ruth Edwards would beg to differ.
Here's the list. I am not sure what I find more shocking, the venality of some MPs or the gullibility of some companies.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
The rule change being considered by the committee, which could force more than 30 MPs – the majority Conservative, and all but one of them men – to give up jobs they currently hold, would have prevented the row about whether Paterson was entitled to use an exemption because it would have stopped him working as a paid consultant in the first place.
The Guardian missed a trick here. Surely they are almost all white men?
I think Ruth Edwards would beg to differ.
Well, I was specifically commenting on the "all but one of them men" point. Not sure why they didn't go further and describe how many of them were of a given ethnicity, too. I mean it's totally relevant, isn't it?
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I've suggested similar but you can introduce distorting effects if you tie it to the median salary. I've considered a complicated formula involving several different deciles, and also using GDP per capita.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
By discriminating against white men?
Did you read the story, not the headline?
From what I can work out, they are trying to improve the representation of non white men. So they have set up an approval process where a manager needs to demonstrate they have considered other options before hiring a white man. There is also mention of bonuses being linked to how many minorities and women a manager hires.
This isn't that complicated. It is a policy of valuing racial and sexual identity over individual merit and ability in recruitment decisions. It is a retrograde step away from true equality, but entirely in line with the woke zeitgeist and its alternative vision of equity.
If you don't like this direction of travel, then your only option is to vote republican.
I don't like it, but your "only option" is not correct.
State Street is a private business. Personally, I agree with Nigel Farage that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. And we should be allowed to boycott businesses that discriminate.
Indeed, the only place where the government should have any say in hiring policies is for government. And there there is additional issue. The government has the monopoly on the use of force: and if their employees (the ones with guns) overwhelmingly look like one racial group, and appear to disproportionately target other racial groups, then you might think there's something there that looks rather like racism.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
On topic: I think any government strategist worth their salt would wonder for a moment whether Southend West and North Shropshire could be scheduled on the same day. Any attack on sleaze could be blunted as a reckless and dangerous coarsening of the debate. The only queasy feeling one might feel in that position is that it might be seen as too transparent, it might backfire.
Southend isn’t going to be contested, except by minor parties
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
I was going to say that even if the salary were increased, would that count as a sinecure? But given that the definition involves a position requiring little or no work, and that is technically possible for MPs (see Jared O'Mara) even though many do work very hard, I suppose pedantically it is possible, even if not representatively so.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Parliament as a hobby for the rich and loaded? Isn't that how it used to be?
MPs only got paid around a century ago. This was so that people of modest means could stand.
I don't think pay is the primary motivation that is needed. The most venal seem to be not short of a bob before they start, such as Owen Paterson. The problem is much more that party machines favour dropping their chosen ones into safe seats.
STV in multimember constituencies is the way to go, so voters can choose both party and candidate. To vote Tory but not OP for example.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Sam for judges, hospital consultants and police chief constables? All of whom are performing a public service.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Certainly the flaw in paying more to get better people is that you have to start by paying more to the donkeys already there. Companies face the same problem and there are various ways round it, such as golden hellos, but ultimately equal pay legislation means you have to be careful not to introduce discrimination.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Parliament as a hobby for the rich and loaded? Isn't that how it used to be?
MPs only got paid around a century ago. This was so that people of modest means could stand.
I don't think pay is the primary motivation that is needed. The most venal seem to be not short of a bob before they start, such as Owen Paterson. The problem is much more that party machines favour dropping their chosen ones into safe seats.
STV in multimember constituencies is the way to go, so voters can choose both party and candidate. To vote Tory but not OP for example.
No not as a hobby for the rich and loaded, as a job for those who are interested in furthering politics instead of making money.
A median salary should still be a decent income. If it isn't, if that's "hobby" money, then there's something wrong with society.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
The problem regarding the lack of suitable candidates goes beyond money; although that is probably a factor.
I think the issue is with the stress of the job, given the high level of public exposure and scrutiny; and the associated intrusion in to your private life that exceeds most other jobs. It used to be a job that had a wide appeal - but in the social media age perhaps less so.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Parliament as a hobby for the rich and loaded? Isn't that how it used to be?
MPs only got paid around a century ago. This was so that people of modest means could stand.
I don't think pay is the primary motivation that is needed. The most venal seem to be not short of a bob before they start, such as Owen Paterson. The problem is much more that party machines favour dropping their chosen ones into safe seats.
STV in multimember constituencies is the way to go, so voters can choose both party and candidate. To vote Tory but not OP for example.
No not as a hobby for the rich and loaded, as a job for those who are interested in furthering politics instead of making money.
A median salary should still be a decent income. If it isn't, if that's "hobby" money, then there's something wrong with society.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Because if they take their role seriously then an MP has more stress and more responsibility than a head does, and we are obviously not getting a supply of good quality candidates.
People are not fungible: the number of people who can be good MPs is limited and they have the talents to get paid much more in other professions. If we take democracy seriously then we have to make sure that being an MP is not something that only the desperate or independently wealthy would contemplate. Paying ministers much more only makes it worse: you entrench the power of the Prime Minister if losing you job will cut your pay to a small fraction of what it was. Small chance of any principled resignations under those circumstances.
Edit to add: the starting salary for a teacher is below the median salary you originally mentioned. I’m a fairly experienced teacher and have reached the top of the various bands.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
You ideally want people like headmasters of schools to stand for election to parliament; not the equivalent of newly qualified teachers. Amongst everything else, the decisions made in parliament have enormous consequences for society. The problem at present is that there are too many political activists who aren't really up to the task of being decision makers, and that problem would only increase were the wage to be reduced as you are suggesting.
One other point on MPs salaries: ministers and PMs are drawn from the ranks of ordinary MPs. Restricting MPs to those who can’t earn significant multiples of the median salary is really going make finding decent ministers even more of a problem than it already is.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
MPs pay is about right ie comfortably in the top 10% of earners for a job that is largely about constituency casework now, with some legislative scrutiny and votes and cttee work alongside.
The PM and Cabinet Ministers pay though should be raised to about £170,000 to ensure they are clearly in the top 1% of earners given their responsibilities
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
The problem with median salary is that the easiest way to increase it is to make it uneconomical to hire the low skilled.
If you imposed a £50 minimum wage, you would find that unemployment would be much higher, but so would the median salary.
Yes. That's why I thought of using GDP per capita instead, though I'm sure there would be ways to game that too.
One thing you could do is to calculate the median salary of the whole population, not just the employed population, so including those who are economically inactive.
I really do like the idea of linking MPs salaries directly to increasing the fortunes of the voters, so that they benefit financially if we do so. But you'd have to be careful about how you did it.
On the by-election one question is what Labour are doing?
Even if they don't think they have much of a chance of winning the seat, it's an opportunity to get out there and talk to voters, test out campaign messages, and see whether Leave/north of London voters can be won over.
If they decide they can't be asked because the local organisation is weak, and they've never won the seat before, then it would make it easier for the Lib Dems to build up a head of steam.
I would quite like it to mysteriously happen that Labour really concentrates on Bexley and the LibDems really conceentrate on North Shropshire, and we see how everyone gets on. But I know how hard it is for Labour to swallow dodgy barcharts like this (highlighting a local election instead of the comparable result last time).
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
MPs pay is about right ie comfortably in the top 10% of earners for a job that is largely about constituency casework now, with some legislative scrutiny and votes and cttee work alongside.
The PM and Cabinet Ministers pay though should be raised to about £170,000 to ensure they are clearly in the top 1% of earners given their responsibilities
I'd be quite happy for MPs to earn a little more even, BUT being an MP has to be their only income source whilst in post
On the by-election one question is what Labour are doing?
Even if they don't think they have much of a chance of winning the seat, it's an opportunity to get out there and talk to voters, test out campaign messages, and see whether Leave/north of London voters can be won over.
If they decide they can't be asked because the local organisation is weak, and they've never won the seat before, then it would make it easier for the Lib Dems to build up a head of steam.
I would quite like it to mysteriously happen that Labour really concentrates on Bexley and the LibDems really conceentrate on North Shropshire, and we see how everyone gets on. But I know how hard it is for Labour to swallow dodgy barcharts like this (highlighting a local election instead of the comparable result last time).
I'm not saying that would be a bad thing for Labour if it happened that way, but it does seem a bit strange. Labour are second in both seats, and the majority in terms of the percentage of the vote is marginally smaller in North Shropshire (40.6) than in Old Bexley and Sidcup (41.1).
Is it because North Shropshire is a rural seat, while Old Bexley and Sidcup is suburban? Is it because Labour Party organisation is stronger in London than further north?
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
MPs pay is about right ie comfortably in the top 10% of earners for a job that is largely about constituency casework now, with some legislative scrutiny and votes and cttee work alongside.
The PM and Cabinet Ministers pay though should be raised to about £170,000 to ensure they are clearly in the top 1% of earners given their responsibilities
I'd be quite happy for MPs to earn a little more even, BUT being an MP has to be their only income source whilst in post
So no pensions, interest on their bank accounts, dividends from stocks…
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
MPs pay is about right ie comfortably in the top 10% of earners for a job that is largely about constituency casework now, with some legislative scrutiny and votes and cttee work alongside.
The PM and Cabinet Ministers pay though should be raised to about £170,000 to ensure they are clearly in the top 1% of earners given their responsibilities
I'd be quite happy for MPs to earn a little more even, BUT being an MP has to be their only income source whilst in post
So no pensions, interest on their bank accounts, dividends from stocks…
No. None of the above.
Strictly ruled post MP trust funds etc. I dareeay could be arranged. I am giving them office expense accounts as well so they won't starve.
On the by-election one question is what Labour are doing?
Even if they don't think they have much of a chance of winning the seat, it's an opportunity to get out there and talk to voters, test out campaign messages, and see whether Leave/north of London voters can be won over.
If they decide they can't be asked because the local organisation is weak, and they've never won the seat before, then it would make it easier for the Lib Dems to build up a head of steam.
I would quite like it to mysteriously happen that Labour really concentrates on Bexley and the LibDems really conceentrate on North Shropshire, and we see how everyone gets on. But I know how hard it is for Labour to swallow dodgy barcharts like this (highlighting a local election instead of the comparable result last time).
I'm not saying that would be a bad thing for Labour if it happened that way, but it does seem a bit strange. Labour are second in both seats, and the majority in terms of the percentage of the vote is marginally smaller in North Shropshire (40.6) than in Old Bexley and Sidcup (41.1).
Is it because North Shropshire is a rural seat, while Old Bexley and Sidcup is suburban? Is it because Labour Party organisation is stronger in London than further north?
Labour's membership in London is huge - I suspect the party can put up a pretty respectable effort there. I don't know much about Shropshire. But I'm just idly speculating - I think some practice in the oft-discussed tacit agreements to focus in different places would be useful.
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Peace in NI depends on Unionist consent as much as Nationalist
Which Mrs May was very mindful of. Your clown put the border in the North Channel.
Better than having no border at all and the UK subjugated to EU rules.
It really isn't.
Yes absolutely sovereignty is the most important thing above all others.
Sovereignty = democracy. Having the ability to elect the people who set our laws, if we're subjugated to EU laws without having a say then how do we have any democracy?
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
Linking it to GDP would certainly have logic behind it. But I don't think any of these schemes would change behaviour much. People become MPs because of a mixture of idealism and glory-hunting (the mix varies with the individual), and the mix of ambition, loyalty and genuine belief would still apply. I never met anyone who cited the salary as a reason - most professionals can earn more for less work. When I applied to be a candidate in 1996 it was something like £40,000 so I was expecting to more than halve my then IT salary, but it simply wasn't an issue. However, a really low salary would be a disincentive except for zealots, and we don't really want Parliament entirely stocked with zealots.
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Doesn't 69 to 97 teach us that there are two communities in Northern Ireland and they both need treating with respect?
Invoking Article 16 is the best way to do that.
We're in this mess now because Johnson, Cummings and Frost decided that shafting the Unionists in Northern Ireland was the best way to win a general election. That worked, at the high price of destabilising the political settlement in Northern Ireland. Shafting the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, by invoking Article 16, is one of guaranteed to make the situation worse.
What Brexit has done is to upset the delicate balance that was reached in Northern Ireland, and to bring Northern Ireland's constitutional status into doubt. It was best left alone. We need actions that will provide reassurance and calm the situation down, not provoke even more anger, discontent and mistrust.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
By discriminating against white men?
Did you read the story, not the headline?
From what I can work out, they are trying to improve the representation of non white men. So they have set up an approval process where a manager needs to demonstrate they have considered other options before hiring a white man. There is also mention of bonuses being linked to how many minorities and women a manager hires.
This isn't that complicated. It is a policy of valuing racial and sexual identity over individual merit and ability in recruitment decisions. It is a retrograde step away from true equality, but entirely in line with the woke zeitgeist and its alternative vision of equity.
If you don't like this direction of travel, then your only option is to vote republican.
No it is not. The State Street process merely requires that hiring managers have considered the "individual merit and ability" of others alongside White men. Most bankers are not communists.
However, you and @Leon are probably right that most voters will read and vote according to the headline and not the story. I doubt the squillionaire bankers will be heartbroken if that means more GOP tax cuts for people like them.
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Doesn't 69 to 97 teach us that there are two communities in Northern Ireland and they both need treating with respect?
Invoking Article 16 is the best way to do that.
We're in this mess now because Johnson, Cummings and Frost decided that shafting the Unionists in Northern Ireland was the best way to win a general election. That worked, at the high price of destabilising the political settlement in Northern Ireland. Shafting the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, by invoking Article 16, is one of guaranteed to make the situation worse.
What Brexit has done is to upset the delicate balance that was reached in Northern Ireland, and to bring Northern Ireland's constitutional status into doubt. It was best left alone. We need actions that will provide reassurance and calm the situation down, not provoke even more anger, discontent and mistrust.
We're not in a mess, we're in an infinitely better situation than we were in 2017-19.
If we'd done the horrendous deal May wanted then we'd have subjugated the entire UK including NI under EU rules, without us having a vote in any of them, and without us having a way out.
How would we have gotten out of that trap and started setting our own rules again?
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Peace in NI depends on Unionist consent as much as Nationalist
Which Mrs May was very mindful of. Your clown put the border in the North Channel.
Better than having no border at all and the UK subjugated to EU rules.
It really isn't.
Yes absolutely sovereignty is the most important thing above all others.
Sovereignty = democracy. Having the ability to elect the people who set our laws, if we're subjugated to EU laws without having a say then how do we have any democracy?
The "it's sovrinty innit" is an absolute crock. Parliament is only sovereign for your boy when it suits him, hence the prorugation in 2019.
The sovereignty argument is just such bollocks I can't be arsed to engage.Was it worth the damage to numerous UK industries, was it worth stoking sectarianism, was it worth the chaos when travelling within Europe? I suppose it must be.
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Doesn't 69 to 97 teach us that there are two communities in Northern Ireland and they both need treating with respect?
Invoking Article 16 is the best way to do that.
We're in this mess now because Johnson, Cummings and Frost decided that shafting the Unionists in Northern Ireland was the best way to win a general election. That worked, at the high price of destabilising the political settlement in Northern Ireland. Shafting the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, by invoking Article 16, is one of guaranteed to make the situation worse.
What Brexit has done is to upset the delicate balance that was reached in Northern Ireland, and to bring Northern Ireland's constitutional status into doubt. It was best left alone. We need actions that will provide reassurance and calm the situation down, not provoke even more anger, discontent and mistrust.
We're not in a mess, we're in an infinitely better situation than we were in 2017-19.
If we'd done the horrendous deal May wanted then we'd have subjugated the entire UK including NI under EU rules, without us having a vote in any of them, and without us having a way out.
How would we have gotten out of that trap and started setting our own rules again?
I'm not providing a superior alternative. I still think we're trapped in the Brexit trilemma. I don't see that it's possible for there not to be a border in the Irish Sea and not be a border on the island of Ireland and for there to be unrestrained regulatory divergence between London and Brussels.
May chose to disappoint the hard Brexiteers. Johnson chose to disappoint Unionists, and now looks set to choose the third option. I don't see that being any more acceptable to Nationalists than the Irish Sea border is to Unionists, or open-ended regulatory alignment was to hard Brexiteers.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
Linking it to GDP would certainly have logic behind it. But I don't think any of these schemes would change behaviour much. People become MPs because of a mixture of idealism and glory-hunting (the mix varies with the individual), and the mix of ambition, loyalty and genuine belief would still apply. I never met anyone who cited the salary as a reason - most professionals can earn more for less work. When I applied to be a candidate in 1996 it was something like £40,000 so I was expecting to more than halve my then IT salary, but it simply wasn't an issue. However, a really low salary would be a disincentive except for zealots, and we don't really want Parliament entirely stocked with zealots.
It might diffuse some of the animus about expenses, etc, if the basic salaries were more relatable for entry level journalists or the median voter. In some ways the old model of disguising the perks was better.
Old Bexley is near areas of Labour strength like Lewisham and Greenwich so they wouldn't have a problem getting activists to campaign. North Shropshire is next to former LD seats in Montgomeryshire and Brecon & Radnor.
Old Bexley is near areas of Labour strength like Lewisham and Greenwich so they wouldn't have a problem getting activists to campaign. North Shropshire is next to former LD seats in Montgomeryshire and Brecon & Radnor.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
Linking it to GDP would certainly have logic behind it. But I don't think any of these schemes would change behaviour much. People become MPs because of a mixture of idealism and glory-hunting (the mix varies with the individual), and the mix of ambition, loyalty and genuine belief would still apply. I never met anyone who cited the salary as a reason - most professionals can earn more for less work. When I applied to be a candidate in 1996 it was something like £40,000 so I was expecting to more than halve my then IT salary, but it simply wasn't an issue. However, a really low salary would be a disincentive except for zealots, and we don't really want Parliament entirely stocked with zealots.
It might diffuse some of the animus about expenses, etc, if the basic salaries were more relatable for entry level journalists or the median voter. In some ways the old model of disguising the perks was better.
Expenses for MPs should be scrapped and replaced with allowances and if individual MPs choose to spend their second home allowance on a duck house then so be it. We'd never know anyway.
Nor do I think the voter on the Clapham omnibus expects MPs to be paupers or even average employees. I doubt there'd be any real objection to MPs being paid along the lines of headteachers or doctors or, as in the past, with defined civil service grades. Trouble is, sooner or later some grandstanding PM rejects recommended pay increases and so breaks the agreed link.
The Progressive Unionist Party is making a 'constitutional statement' tomorrow morning that is promised to be 'the most significant constitutional policy statement from our party since the Belfast Agreement'.
Main aim of that of course being to ensure Boris can count on the support of the DUP if there is a hung parliament at the next general election.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
I genuinely hope you are wrong. The cynicism of what you have just stated is mind-boggling. Did you not see a news bulletin between 1969 and 1997?
Doesn't 69 to 97 teach us that there are two communities in Northern Ireland and they both need treating with respect?
Invoking Article 16 is the best way to do that.
We're in this mess now because Johnson, Cummings and Frost decided that shafting the Unionists in Northern Ireland was the best way to win a general election. That worked, at the high price of destabilising the political settlement in Northern Ireland. Shafting the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, by invoking Article 16, is one of guaranteed to make the situation worse.
What Brexit has done is to upset the delicate balance that was reached in Northern Ireland, and to bring Northern Ireland's constitutional status into doubt. It was best left alone. We need actions that will provide reassurance and calm the situation down, not provoke even more anger, discontent and mistrust.
We're not in a mess, we're in an infinitely better situation than we were in 2017-19.
If we'd done the horrendous deal May wanted then we'd have subjugated the entire UK including NI under EU rules, without us having a vote in any of them, and without us having a way out.
How would we have gotten out of that trap and started setting our own rules again?
I'm not providing a superior alternative. I still think we're trapped in the Brexit trilemma. I don't see that it's possible for there not to be a border in the Irish Sea and not be a border on the island of Ireland and for there to be unrestrained regulatory divergence between London and Brussels.
May chose to disappoint the hard Brexiteers. Johnson chose to disappoint Unionists, and now looks set to choose the third option. I don't see that being any more acceptable to Nationalists than the Irish Sea border is to Unionists, or open-ended regulatory alignment was to hard Brexiteers.
The solution has been obvious all along and I've said what it was for years. We need to have divergence, no border in the Irish Sea and no border in Ireland.
The only way to do that is to have a compromise whereby we fudge NI. Whether you call that a technical solution or anything else is immaterial it is the only viable solution and always has been.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
Linking it to GDP would certainly have logic behind it. But I don't think any of these schemes would change behaviour much. People become MPs because of a mixture of idealism and glory-hunting (the mix varies with the individual), and the mix of ambition, loyalty and genuine belief would still apply. I never met anyone who cited the salary as a reason - most professionals can earn more for less work. When I applied to be a candidate in 1996 it was something like £40,000 so I was expecting to more than halve my then IT salary, but it simply wasn't an issue. However, a really low salary would be a disincentive except for zealots, and we don't really want Parliament entirely stocked with zealots.
It might diffuse some of the animus about expenses, etc, if the basic salaries were more relatable for entry level journalists or the median voter. In some ways the old model of disguising the perks was better.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I would freeze or lower the salaries for MPs and increase the salaries for ministers, especially in the cabinet.
All that does is increase the power of the PM and the party over ministers.
But it would also increase the personal stakes for MPs to bring down the PM so overall I think it would enhance parliamentary power.
Would it? If they brought down the PM, they would increase the electorate's view that they were a bunch of eejits, and therefore lower the chance they would have a ministerial position in future.
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
I'd set MPs salaries at double the median salary and leave it at that.
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
I like the tie-in but double median salary (so circa £62k) is too low - we want to attract good quality people to be MPs. I'd go for 4 or 5 times median salary.
I think the salary is too high already, we've already got far more demand of people wanting the job than there is supply of vacancies.
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
Demand of people, or demand of good quality people? Given some of the duffers (to put it diplomatically) in there at the moment, something is going wrong with the selection process if its the latter.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
I don't see any reason why paying considerably more to people will improve the quality of people doing the job, given so many get into the job after a lifetime of politics rather than skilled work.
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
Seriously? We have a task that few people in their fight minds would want to do, given the level of public scrutiny and opprobrium it attracts, and you want to make it even harder to attract anyone capable of doing it well?
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
I don't see any reason why the starting salary for an MP should be any more than the starting salary for a teacher.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
Pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
Who on earth would want military officers to be in parliament. Fuck that. I would disqualify current members of the armed forces from serving in parliament at all, even if we allowed all other jobs. History is a reliable guide of how foolish it is to put military and political power in the same hands.
They are arguing for MPs to only have the single job, so they would be ex-officers and ex-lawyers.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/07/mps-could-be-barred-from-consultancy-roles-in-sleaze-clampdown
I'd go further... No other paid employment allowed for MPs. I'd also double their salaries.
The Guardian missed a trick here. Surely they are almost all white men?
If MPs want a higher salary, they can improve the economy nationwide.
Here's the list. I am not sure what I find more shocking, the venality of some MPs or the gullibility of some companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/07/30-mps-who-could-be-affected-by-proposed-consultancy-ban
Bad cop goes GOOD
Clever
We should have people getting attracted to the job because they want to do so for public service, not because its a well paid sinecure.
(Surplus demand is of course kinda a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy!!!)
State Street is a private business. Personally, I agree with Nigel Farage that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. And we should be allowed to boycott businesses that discriminate.
Indeed, the only place where the government should have any say in hiring policies is for government. And there there is additional issue. The government has the monopoly on the use of force: and if their employees (the ones with guns) overwhelmingly look like one racial group, and appear to disproportionately target other racial groups, then you might think there's something there that looks rather like racism.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/pathetic-hijacking-and-burning-of-bus-in-rathcoole-universally-condemned-by-politicians-41028079.html
Some of the best MPs seem to be those who've done real work first, to experience the real world, and then have gone into politics for public service instead of money making. See Rishi Sunak as an example.
Ideally I'd lower the MPs salary down to the median wage, not a multiplier of it. Let MPs live how everyone else in the country has to live and if they want to be independently wealthy then create that wealth before going into politics not from exploiting politics for their own financial benefit.
MPs only got paid around a century ago. This was so that people of modest means could stand.
I don't think pay is the primary motivation that is needed. The most venal seem to be not short of a bob before they start, such as Owen Paterson. The problem is much more that party machines favour dropping their chosen ones into safe seats.
STV in multimember constituencies is the way to go, so voters can choose both party and candidate. To vote Tory but not OP for example.
I don’t think it should be something people do for the money, but equally I don’t want it to be something that anyone with a mortgage on a decent sized house in the southeast literally cannot afford to do.
I’m a teacher, another thing no one does for the money, but you are suggesting that if I wanted to be an MP, I should have to take a significant pay cut. MPs already get less money than heads of large secondary schools; you think they should get less than a standard classroom teacher?
You seem to argue that because there are lots of applicants for the posts that there isn’t a problem; that is only true if the pool includes anyone capable of actually doing it effectively. Current evidence suggest that there is already a problem here.
Thankfully for all concerned now playing for the French, not his native Iran (whose federation does not permit playing Israelis)
A median salary should still be a decent income. If it isn't, if that's "hobby" money, then there's something wrong with society.
Why should a backbench starting MP be comparable to the head of a large secondary? Absolutely the head of a school should be getting paid more than a backbench MP on a starting salary. Ministers of course can earn more.
I think the issue is with the stress of the job, given the high level of public exposure and scrutiny; and the associated intrusion in to your private life that exceeds most other jobs. It used to be a job that had a wide appeal - but in the social media age perhaps less so.
People are not fungible: the number of people who can be good MPs is limited and they have the talents to get paid much more in other professions. If we take democracy seriously then we have to make sure that being an MP is not something that only the desperate or independently wealthy would contemplate.
Paying ministers much more only makes it worse: you entrench the power of the Prime Minister if losing you job will cut your pay to a small fraction of what it was. Small chance of any principled resignations under those circumstances.
Edit to add: the starting salary for a teacher is below the median salary you originally mentioned. I’m a fairly experienced teacher and have reached the top of the various bands.
I know we had our disagreements re. Sir Keir, but hope your mum can rest in peace.
If you imposed a £50 minimum wage, you would find that unemployment would be much higher, but so would the median salary.
If you want Lawyers, Military Officers, Doctors and Captains of Industry to impart their knowledge and experience to the nation you have to pay for it. In exchange for fair pay, no second, third, fourth and fifth jobs and no lobbying or related potential conflict of interest jobs for a full parliament after leaving the HoC.
Politicians of Boris Johnson's calibre, without a private income or trust surely should be expected to live in the style they deserve.
The PM and Cabinet Ministers pay though should be raised to about £170,000 to ensure they are clearly in the top 1% of earners given their responsibilities
An oven -ready Article 16 withdrawal. Twenty point Tory poll lead.
One thing you could do is to calculate the median salary of the whole population, not just the employed population, so including those who are economically inactive.
I really do like the idea of linking MPs salaries directly to increasing the fortunes of the voters, so that they benefit financially if we do so. But you'd have to be careful about how you did it.
While at the same time stopping the DUP leaking votes to TUV and dividing the Unionist vote at Stormont to SF's benefit
Just wanted to say:
West Ham 3
Liverpool 2
Is it because North Shropshire is a rural seat, while Old Bexley and Sidcup is suburban? Is it because Labour Party organisation is stronger in London than further north?
Invoking Article 16 is the best way to do that.
Strictly ruled post MP trust funds etc. I dareeay could be arranged. I am giving them office expense accounts as well so they won't starve.
Plus Article 16 can eradicate the Irish Sea border, so win/win.
Sovereignty = democracy. Having the ability to elect the people who set our laws, if we're subjugated to EU laws without having a say then how do we have any democracy?
What Brexit has done is to upset the delicate balance that was reached in Northern Ireland, and to bring Northern Ireland's constitutional status into doubt. It was best left alone. We need actions that will provide reassurance and calm the situation down, not provoke even more anger, discontent and mistrust.
However, you and @Leon are probably right that most voters will read and vote according to the headline and not the story. I doubt the squillionaire bankers will be heartbroken if that means more GOP tax cuts for people like them.
If we'd done the horrendous deal May wanted then we'd have subjugated the entire UK including NI under EU rules, without us having a vote in any of them, and without us having a way out.
How would we have gotten out of that trap and started setting our own rules again?
The sovereignty argument is just such bollocks I can't be arsed to engage.Was it worth the damage to numerous UK industries, was it worth stoking sectarianism, was it worth the chaos when travelling within Europe? I suppose it must be.
May chose to disappoint the hard Brexiteers. Johnson chose to disappoint Unionists, and now looks set to choose the third option. I don't see that being any more acceptable to Nationalists than the Irish Sea border is to Unionists, or open-ended regulatory alignment was to hard Brexiteers.
Nor do I think the voter on the Clapham omnibus expects MPs to be paupers or even average employees. I doubt there'd be any real objection to MPs being paid along the lines of headteachers or doctors or, as in the past, with defined civil service grades. Trouble is, sooner or later some grandstanding PM rejects recommended pay increases and so breaks the agreed link.
https://twitter.com/CllrPup/status/1457351545994031118
The only way to do that is to have a compromise whereby we fudge NI. Whether you call that a technical solution or anything else is immaterial it is the only viable solution and always has been.