SKS could make hay. Whether he does or not remains to be seen. Labour needs to attack wider government corruption than just Owen Paterson, who will have gone anyway.
Blair won a landslide in 1997 not just because of Tory sleaze, but because he and his team set out a vision that was positive, and placed it under simple banners: "Things can only get better", "education, education, education", etc.
Labour needs to set out their vision for the country - and ensure it's positive. They also need to show the voters they've rooted out the last of the anti-Semitism and other poisons that festered and thrived within the party under Corbyn.
All we've seen from Starmer is a worthy and weighty self-indulgent tome that was fully in WORN territory. It will have ad zero impact on the public, or even his party.
Labour's problem is Boris pinched all the popular bits from Corbyn, so if Labour were to propose, say, new hospitals or more police or better internet in remote areas, so what? Boris has already got those in hand, or at least he says he has.
You are right that Labour does need to present a positive vision, but it also needs to destroy Boris and his government. And all of us should welcome an end to lies and corruption.
The challenge for Labour is that the Tories have stolen all of Labour's policies - new hospitals and the like.
The challenge for the Tories is that they have promised new hospitals and are delivering new units on existing hospitals.
As I keep pointing out, red wall voters are not as stupid as southern Tories think they are. Saying "vote for us and get a new hospital", then not opening a new hospital but saying "look, here is your new hospital" is likely to get them run out of town at the next election.
There is a dripping arrogance problem with the Tories. They won with "jam tomorrow" in 2019. They now have to deliver jam. If they fail to deliver jam AND ask "do you like your jam", it won't end well. How do you deliver on impossible promises you had no intentions of keeping?
I’m not sure I buy that argument
I think if you expand a perfectly good hospital in a constituency with a cancer or paediatric ward or whatever voters will accept that as fulfilment of a pledge. They think “new hospital” = expansion of healthcare provision
At least we have confirmation on RP's assertion that Southern Tories do think Northern voters are that stupid.
Or you have all MP expenses via a HoC credit card plus travel booked centrally.
And no, it is not acceptable to get a £250 taxi home. You stay in your second home.
I wonder if we could have a 'Job Centre' for MP's. Every fortnight they must attend or face sanctions. They must provide evidence of their constituency work. They must also declare any change in circumstances, such as 'extra income'. This extra shall be deducted from their pay. https://twitter.com/Vincent_Rowlatt/status/1457302492509839361
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
That's a non-sequitur. It's quite possible for 97% of people to recognise that there are less stressful jobs than being an MP, with no particular implications for MPs' salaries.
SKS could make hay. Whether he does or not remains to be seen. Labour needs to attack wider government corruption than just Owen Paterson, who will have gone anyway.
Blair won a landslide in 1997 not just because of Tory sleaze, but because he and his team set out a vision that was positive, and placed it under simple banners: "Things can only get better", "education, education, education", etc.
Labour needs to set out their vision for the country - and ensure it's positive. They also need to show the voters they've rooted out the last of the anti-Semitism and other poisons that festered and thrived within the party under Corbyn.
All we've seen from Starmer is a worthy and weighty self-indulgent tome that was fully in WORN territory. It will have ad zero impact on the public, or even his party.
Labour's problem is Boris pinched all the popular bits from Corbyn, so if Labour were to propose, say, new hospitals or more police or better internet in remote areas, so what? Boris has already got those in hand, or at least he says he has.
You are right that Labour does need to present a positive vision, but it also needs to destroy Boris and his government. And all of us should welcome an end to lies and corruption.
The challenge for Labour is that the Tories have stolen all of Labour's policies - new hospitals and the like.
The challenge for the Tories is that they have promised new hospitals and are delivering new units on existing hospitals.
As I keep pointing out, red wall voters are not as stupid as southern Tories think they are. Saying "vote for us and get a new hospital", then not opening a new hospital but saying "look, here is your new hospital" is likely to get them run out of town at the next election.
There is a dripping arrogance problem with the Tories. They won with "jam tomorrow" in 2019. They now have to deliver jam. If they fail to deliver jam AND ask "do you like your jam", it won't end well. How do you deliver on impossible promises you had no intentions of keeping?
I’m not sure I buy that argument
I think if you expand a perfectly good hospital in a constituency with a cancer or paediatric ward or whatever voters will accept that as fulfilment of a pledge. They think “new hospital” = expansion of healthcare provision
You would say that. It doesn't wash - bolting a new new unit on the side of a crumbling hospital isn't a new hospital, nor does it assuage the demands for one. At least it hasn't on Teesside (where Tories are still campaigning to replace North Tees) or Carlisle (where the local Tory MP pointedly refuses to describe the new wing on the old hospital as a new hospital despite ministers insisting it is).
Its like "Here is your new car" when its your old car with new wheels and a wrap. Like I said earlier, sneering arrogance...
Trade Secretary @annietrev talking down the prospect of @BorisJohnson showing up for today’s debate on standards in parliament. “He has a very important job only he can do.” 🤨
It will look like he’s running scared if he doesn’t show
People will recall this from December 2019: Boris Johnson hides in fridge to avoid questions
Anne Marie Trevelyan forced to deploy several “Clearlys" and an "In Due Course" during her Today interview suggests govt position on current sleaze row still very much evolving https://twitter.com/janinegibson/status/1457624192292163585
The government has had more positions on this than somebody working through the whole Kama Sutra.
And the outcome in terms of being screwed is about the same.
Edited for autocorrect SNAFU, although I do like the idea of Paterson's fuckups being the karma Sutra.
Do you know anyone v who has worked their way thro the Kama Sutra.???.not having read it i would guess that 90pc are unachievable unless you are a contortionist.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Yes.
The most basic principle has to be "our representatives are no different from us".
We are 90% closer to that than we were before 2010, and now the expenses debate is about relatively small distinctions.
This is now moving on to consultancies and outside interests. I hope that it covers all of them. It needs to cover TU affiliation and donations, in addition to 'consultancies'. And lobbying by campaign groups and charities.
IMO APPGs are also quite a cesspit for outsiders wanting to buy influence.
I don't think MPs expenses are the issue they once were - parliament learned much from that bruising encounter. No, now the issues are party funding and public contracts.
If we removed parties from the need to get much of their funding privately we would remove much of the fuel for corruption. No more cash for peerages, planning decisions or PPE contracts.
Not sure I agree with this. The arrogant "I know best and who are you to question my judgment" mentality that caused the expenses scandal was very evident in the mindset of Owen Paterson at least.
I do not think it is possible to remove party funding as an issue. Whatever public money the parties got they would want more, it is the nature of the beast. IT and Social media have really increased the capacity of parties to spend even more on elections than they did before.
I want the HoL abolished but for as long as this anachronistic irrelevance remains selling seats in it is probably one of the least painful ways of parties generating the funding they think they need, certainly better than selling PP or dodgy contracts. On the latter I think that there should be some latitude for what needed to be done immediately in the Covid crisis but boy, did the "never fail to take advantage of a disaster" mentality strike hard.
May be just say that life peerages only get seats and votes for 10 years. After that it is renewed by an independent committee subject to participation / contribution.
People still get the fancy name but only limited role in parliament
SKS could make hay. Whether he does or not remains to be seen. Labour needs to attack wider government corruption than just Owen Paterson, who will have gone anyway.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
— Matthew 7:1–5 KJV
The Sermon on the Whataboutery? Is that the new Tory spin line or are you urging Boris to sack the Home and Justice Secretaries?
Read what it says on the tin. All I am saying is that when it comes to corruption Labour had better be sure its hands are and have been clean.
There is corruption in all Parties, always has been, always will be.
Maybe we can set up a judge-led inquiry to examine PPE contracts awarded by Labour ministers to their mates. In any case, with this attempted whataboutery, you are in danger of missing a key political question.
Just as Boris cut Paterson adrift to try and limit the contagion, at what point will the wider Conservative Party find it expedient to ditch Boris for a new Mister Clean, like Rishi or Liz Truss, and blame Boris for any dodgy deals? Especially as there are Conservatives who, unlike Boris, do not need to wait for newspaper headlines or focus groups to know when something is wrong.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
That's a non-sequitur. It's quite possible for 97% of people to recognise that there are less stressful jobs than being an MP, with no particular implications for MPs' salaries.
Not really.
A lot of people in this country, earning considerably less than an MP, for example are running their own small business they have their life's savings invested into. If that fails then they may have nothing. Do you consider that less stressful than being an MP?
I think if you expand a perfectly good hospital in a constituency with a cancer or paediatric ward or whatever voters will accept that as fulfilment of a pledge. They think “new hospital” = expansion of healthcare provision
I disagree. My experience is that people ignore any gradual improvement to local services. Some even ignore concrete improvements. A friend canvassed one voter who complained that the promise to build new schools was not being met, even though a new school was literally under construction opposite his front window. My friend pointed this out - the voter said oh yeah, but that's an exception, isn't it? He'd read a leaflet that claimed the promise wasn't being met, so... People are predisposed to take a jaundiced view, and it's only really dramatic chan ge - such as the success of the vaccine programme - to get them to concede that something has worked.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
If I were an MP nowadays, I'd be *very* careful about putting in for even reasonable expenses, leaving me significantly out-of-pocket. And that's unreasonable.
It is the same for councillors. Screaming abuse every time expenses are published. The more obvious the expense (childcare as one example), the worse the abuse. I know quite a few councillors, most claim very little despite spending quite a lot.
Childcare is a great example, because it’s a big expense that most voters have to pay out of their own pocket when they go to work.
But councillors don't get paid a proper salary as far as I know. So claiming it on expenses seems reasonable, unless you think that people with childcare responsibilities shouldn't become councillors.
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Of course they can, free market and all that.
It shouldn’t stop MPs referring to him earning getting paid as much as half of dozen of them do, but for some reason MPs don’t say things like that.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
That's a non-sequitur. It's quite possible for 97% of people to recognise that there are less stressful jobs than being an MP, with no particular implications for MPs' salaries.
Not really.
A lot of people in this country, earning considerably less than an MP, for example are running their own small business they have their life's savings invested into. If that fails then they may have nothing. Do you consider that less stressful than being an MP?
It's more a question of your life being entirely in the public eye and under media scrutiny, than work-related stress per se.
I've known tons of MPs over the years, and for the backbenchers what always strikes me is how they have a routine and surprisingly powerless job 'in the office', mostly doing what they are told by leaders and whips, with their calendars and speeches vetted and monitored, the rest of the time working away mostly forwarding correspondence from one place to another. Yet as soon as they leave the office they are seen as people of power. The more effective ones are those that are able to harness the 'soft power' they have in the real world to get things done. The less effective ones are the self-important types that think that tabling a question or some doomed amendment in the chamber, or making a speech to an audience of ten, is making the world a better place.
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
SKS could make hay. Whether he does or not remains to be seen. Labour needs to attack wider government corruption than just Owen Paterson, who will have gone anyway.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
— Matthew 7:1–5 KJV
The Sermon on the Whataboutery? Is that the new Tory spin line or are you urging Boris to sack the Home and Justice Secretaries?
Read what it says on the tin. All I am saying is that when it comes to corruption Labour had better be sure its hands are and have been clean.
There is corruption in all Parties, always has been, always will be.
The passage can be understood, of course, in many conflicting ways. It is always convenient for the wrongdoer to interpret it as "Shut up about what you allege I have done, you scoundrel". But maybe better as advice to be cautious, precise and careful about making allegations. And sometimes better to shut up. (Though not about the duplicities of the powerful, like MPs), (see the thoughts of Jesus on the subject passim.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
My worst phase was 12 hours to 36 hours, after that I was well on the mend. Hope you get there quickly.
On the last sentence, I disagree; plenty of older Red Wallers have sons and daughters or nephews and nieces who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, by their own abilities, as he has done.
Yes. In general it's a mistake right across the spectrum to talk of Red Wallers as though they were a different species. Part of the change is simply demographic - people who are by no means former coal miners moving top cheap homes in places like Ashfield. And even where people are born and bred in a classic Labour constituency, they vary as individuals and move in line with the national trend, which is for class no longer to be a major factor in political preference, much as some might wish it to be. Age is far more important, and a factor in the Red Wall may be that younger people had a higher tendency to move away than people born in London with all its opportunities. I've not looked it up, but I bet the average age in London is well below Ashfield.
We asked over 60 Conservative MPs who voted to pause Owen Paterson’s suspension to speak to us on @bbcnews today; almost all said they weren’t available, declined to come on air or didn’t respond. We’ll talk to 1 who did agree, just after 0930https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59199634
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
The truth is that MPs are being paid (even including the expense stuff) a wage that is easily achievable within a 5 years of working in IT in London.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
I'm quite sure that Peston works for "Professor Peston Ltd" - which then charges x per hour.......
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
Only if promotion and pay rises are dependent on performance, not incumbency.
Why should the MP for the safest seat in the country be paid more than one who has to fight for his/her seat every time?
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Of course they can, free market and all that.
It shouldn’t stop MPs referring to him earning getting paid as much as half of dozen of them do, but for some reason MPs don’t say things like that.
It is a pretty juvenile point. Who is it supposed to impress?
An 80 seat majority is an awful lot to lose in one go - and if the polling next summer comes close to suggesting that as an outcome, the chances are high that the Tories will swap leader again.
I’m thinking we are pretty much exactly two years out from the next election. Govt want the new boundaries in place, but don’t want to run things to the last minute.
It hasn’t happened since 1970. Then, 1929, 1945 (not a standard example!) and 1964 are the only times it has happened since women got the vote.
The complicating factor is that the Tories could easily lose several seats in Wales, Scotland and the South while still picking up others as demography and the economy continue their long-term changes in the North and Midlands.
I think the chances of them losing their majority are 50% at best. In fact, I would say the market has probably got the odds backwards.
About right I think. BTW non attentive comment (not on PB of course) will confuse several possibilities, the chances of which are hugely different:
A Tory majority Tories losing their majority Tories keeping power with or without friendly others Labour winning a majority Labour forming the next government alone Labour forming the next government with support Labour having more seats than any other party No new stable government able to be formed following the next election, leading to fresh elections or some other constitutional nightmare.
Trying to put a percentage chance on each of these would be an interesting exercise. FWIW I think the last has a higher possibility than usual.
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
Only if promotion and pay rises are dependent on performance, not incumbency.
Why should the MP for the safest seat in the country be paid more than one who has to fight for his/her seat every time?
Indeed. A good start might be trying to define what MPs are for.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
Yep. And unlike a backbench MP, they have *real* power.
Which is why they should be so much more professional about what they do than they are. I know Peston's no longer BBC, but his work over the Covid crisis would have been hilarious if it had not been so serious. Even when drowning out of his depth, he jus swum deeper. Much of the BBC is no different.
(A simple piece of advice to the BBC. You have lots of experts who are excellent communicators. If a big story breaks, don't give it to the big name who knows f'all about the topic. Put the expert in front of the camera.)
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
If you're buying crisps and never watching ITV, you're still paying for the crisp adverts and Lineker's appearance fee for the advert
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
I am happy to swerve my booster. Quite healthy, touch wood, and under 50. Not due til Feb anyway
Funny enough, since the bad reaction to my first AZ, I have gone from drinking 6-7 cups of tea a day to never drinking tea at all. Gave me a headache every time I had one
If you buy crisps then you get crisps. If you watch TV but not the BBC you still have to pay the BBC. If you don't eat crisps you don't have to fund their manufacture.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
I could tell you a few stories about things people tried to claim for, or for some of the fraud we uncovered over the years! But it wouldn't be good practice to post individual case details.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
My favourite expenses story:
Nearly three decades ago, I started working in London for a company that had bought in a new computer system (replacing a 1970s Bull mainframe...). The vendor's main representative was a larger-than-life Irishman, witty, jovial, and fun - and had access to what we called his 'magic expense card'. For three months, I cooked no meal as he'd take us all out for food (*).
One Monday, he didn't come in to work. He finally reappeared on the Thursday, having had to fly to head office to explain himself. On the Saturday he'd gone to the races, and at an auction after the races, had bought a nag on his expenses card. The sale went through, and he had to sort out the mess - at a large financial cost to himself.
I've no idea if the story was true or not: but I do know he was in trouble with head office, and his colleagues said that an event at the races was involved ...
(*) I hasten to add I was just a junior grunt, working as a temp. I had no power or influence.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
The truth is that MPs are being paid (even including the expense stuff) a wage that is easily achievable within a 5 years of working in IT in London.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
I don't see what IT kids in the City have to do with it.
MPs have an independent pay review body, and - I assume - benchmarks.
There are hundreds of MPs who get extra boosts or allowances for responsibilty or position. Some of them are backbenchers.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
If you're buying crisps and never watching ITV, you're still paying for the crisp adverts and Lineker's appearance fee for the advert
I think the TV licence fee is now out of date with streaming and other services. I also abhor the idea that the BBC needs to keep competing for 'talent'. How about getting new people in if the 'talent' wants to leave. Might shake up the complacency a bit.
If I drive a Toyota, I shouldn't also have to pay Ford for the privilege.
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
I am happy to swerve my booster. Quite healthy, touch wood, and under 50. Not due til Feb anyway
Funny enough, since the bad reaction to my first AZ, I have gone from drinking 6-7 cups of tea a day to never drinking tea at all. Gave me a headache every time I had one
The latest evidence from SAGE shows that protection against symptomatic disease falls from 65%, up to three months after the second dose, to 45% six months after the second dose for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, and from 90% to 65% for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Protection against hospitalisation falls from 95% to 75% for Oxford/AstraZeneca and 99% to 90% for Pfizer/BioNTech. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-urged-to-get-covid-19-boosters-as-almost-10m-people-jabbed
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
My worst phase was 12 hours to 36 hours, after that I was well on the mend. Hope you get there quickly.
It seems totally random. Both me and my other half had two AZ initially followed by a Pfizer booster. Absolutely zero side effects from the Pfizer booster, apart from bruised arms. Is there an explanation for this variability?
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
The truth is that MPs are being paid (even including the expense stuff) a wage that is easily achievable within a 5 years of working in IT in London.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
I don't see what IT kids in the City have to do with it.
MPs have an independent pay review body, and - I assume - benchmarks.
There are hundreds of MPs who get extra boosts or allowances for responsibilty or position. Some of them are backbenchers.
Trouble is grandstanding PMs of both parties who turn down the independent pay review body's recommendations. Rinse and repeat and we end up with underpaid MPs being encouraged (not that all of them needed much encouragement) to fiddle their expenses.
An interesting dissection of Britain's growing corruption problem from someone who has lived under corrupt regimes abroad.
What the article fails to emphasise is the right and duty of the opposition political class, in a country as corrupt as described, to make to the voters with clarity and honesty a better offer, which matches their aspirations, backed with a powerful competence and commentary which leads people inescapably to believe that the honest and loyal opposition are the obvious lot to run the country, and thus turn out in their millions to vote them in.
Corruption in government is the fault of government. Failure to offer us better is the fault of opposition.
If I were an MP nowadays, I'd be *very* careful about putting in for even reasonable expenses, leaving me significantly out-of-pocket. And that's unreasonable.
It is the same for councillors. Screaming abuse every time expenses are published. The more obvious the expense (childcare as one example), the worse the abuse. I know quite a few councillors, most claim very little despite spending quite a lot.
Childcare is a great example, because it’s a big expense that most voters have to pay out of their own pocket when they go to work.
But councillors don't get paid a proper salary as far as I know. So claiming it on expenses seems reasonable, unless you think that people with childcare responsibilities shouldn't become councillors.
Its the latter. The only people that the angry gammon / GBeebies watchers / REFUK voters think should be councillors are people like them. Normals don't have issues with councillors allowances and expenses so much as the loud nutters who seem to entirely fill local community / facebook groups. Its then when you do a prod and the puce-faced angry keyboard warrior actually lives in Thailand that it gets funny...
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
My worst phase was 12 hours to 36 hours, after that I was well on the mend. Hope you get there quickly.
It seems totally random. Both me and my other half had two AZ initially followed by a Pfizer booster. Absolutely zero side effects from the Pfizer booster, apart from bruised arms. Is there an explanation for this variability?
I know, it is odd. I know several people who have had booster with no ill effects at all, whereas I've been laid low for at least a day.
If I were an MP nowadays, I'd be *very* careful about putting in for even reasonable expenses, leaving me significantly out-of-pocket. And that's unreasonable.
It is the same for councillors. Screaming abuse every time expenses are published. The more obvious the expense (childcare as one example), the worse the abuse. I know quite a few councillors, most claim very little despite spending quite a lot.
Childcare is a great example, because it’s a big expense that most voters have to pay out of their own pocket when they go to work.
But councillors don't get paid a proper salary as far as I know. So claiming it on expenses seems reasonable, unless you think that people with childcare responsibilities shouldn't become councillors.
My understanding was that most councillors were paid ‘allowances’ already. I agree that for unpaid positions, reasonable expenses for a child minder are obviously okay.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
And don't forget our lord Marcus Rashford who earnt £250,000 this week for playing 15 minutes of football
92 minutes
And a footballers job is not just the playing time on the pitch. They are not amateurs, coming of the shop floor in the morning to play. Their lives, diet, daily routines etc are highly controlled for the period that they are players. Their holiday is limited to a short window each year. They play over Christmas when many/most of us get a week off.
Of course the elite are paid a ludicrous amount for this, but there is no need to artificially make it look worse than it is.
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
I am happy to swerve my booster. Quite healthy, touch wood, and under 50. Not due til Feb anyway
Funny enough, since the bad reaction to my first AZ, I have gone from drinking 6-7 cups of tea a day to never drinking tea at all. Gave me a headache every time I had one
The latest evidence from SAGE shows that protection against symptomatic disease falls from 65%, up to three months after the second dose, to 45% six months after the second dose for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, and from 90% to 65% for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Protection against hospitalisation falls from 95% to 75% for Oxford/AstraZeneca and 99% to 90% for Pfizer/BioNTech. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-urged-to-get-covid-19-boosters-as-almost-10m-people-jabbed
Infeel sire Labour are going to shout about corruption purely and simply to keep.it in voters minds. I do hope Labour's front bench is clean....
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
And still with the whataboutery. Its absolutely not going to be the case that the Labour team are selling peerages or handing out 9-figure PPE contracts to donors.
You seem entirely content for your money to be snaffled in this way.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
And don't forget our lord Marcus Rashford who earnt £250,000 this week for playing 15 minutes of football
92 minutes
And a footballers job is not just the playing time on the pitch. They are not amateurs, coming of the shop floor in the morning to play. Their lives, diet, daily routines etc are highly controlled for the period that they are players. Their holiday is limited to a short window each year. They play over Christmas when many/most of us get a week off.
Of course the elite are paid a ludicrous amount for this, but there is no need to artificially make it look worse than it is.
I'm pretty sanguine about their pay. I don't pay for them apart from in the most indirect way.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
Surely every respectable lap dancing club, and most of the disrespectful ones, are sensible enough to have an innocent-sounding ‘restaurant’ name on their till receipts and credit card bills?
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
The truth is that MPs are being paid (even including the expense stuff) a wage that is easily achievable within a 5 years of working in IT in London.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
I don't see what IT kids in the City have to do with it.
MPs have an independent pay review body, and - I assume - benchmarks.
There are hundreds of MPs who get extra boosts or allowances for responsibilty or position. Some of them are backbenchers.
Are there? There weren't in my day. You got £0 for being on a Select Committee (except the Chair, I think), £0 for being a PPS. Ministers do get a salary for the extra work.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
The truth is that MPs are being paid (even including the expense stuff) a wage that is easily achievable within a 5 years of working in IT in London.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
And yet why isn't everybody in the country working in IT in London then?
What makes you think a backbench MP would be good enough to be such an IT worker in London?
What makes you think that an IT worker in London is the contemporary of a backbench MP? Why aren't the other 97% of the country that earn less than MPs their contemporaries?
Infeel sire Labour are going to shout about corruption purely and simply to keep.it in voters minds. I do hope Labour's front bench is clean....
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
And still with the whataboutery. Its absolutely not going to be the case that the Labour team are selling peerages or handing out 9-figure PPE contracts to donors.
You seem entirely content for your money to be snaffled in this way.
It's worse, it seems to be anticipatory whataboutery. If, indeed, some corruption story comes out about someone in Labour's front bench, GOOD. The extra sunlight being thrown on this issue ought to sterilise corruption across the whole of parliament. I care less about who gains and loses from this than I do about stamping it out.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
Infeel sire Labour are going to shout about corruption purely and simply to keep.it in voters minds. I do hope Labour's front bench is clean....
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
And still with the whataboutery. Its absolutely not going to be the case that the Labour team are selling peerages or handing out 9-figure PPE contracts to donors.
You seem entirely content for your money to be snaffled in this way.
Quite: They are NOT "all the same", and if we start believing that they are, then trust in freedom and democracy evaporates. For every shabby Patterson scandal there are 10 faithful servants like David Amess. You may not agree with your political opponents but many, even most, are decent people. However, if and when there are rotten apples, no matter what the party, then they must be got rid of ASAP. Right now the smell of sleaze is overwelmingly coming from one side, and as even former Conservative PM Sir John Major has said, it is from the Tory side. That is a disgrace and Tory supporters should be as angry as the rest of us. Defending the indefensible will not do. Sort this or pay terminal electoral consequences is the message the voters are already giving you. If you don´t the writing will be on the wall not just for Boris, but his party too.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
My worst phase was 12 hours to 36 hours, after that I was well on the mend. Hope you get there quickly.
It seems totally random. Both me and my other half had two AZ initially followed by a Pfizer booster. Absolutely zero side effects from the Pfizer booster, apart from bruised arms. Is there an explanation for this variability?
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
The answer is to give MPs the salary, benefits and allowances that top journalists - say, Peston - get. That way the eejits in the media cannot complain. Or at least, they'd be even more hypocritical to complain ...
I find it quite amazing how, over the course of three or four decades, defence from journalists towards politicians has been replaced by deference by politicians towards journalists.
For example, I would have had every minister asked to interview with Kay Burley or Beth Rigby in recent months, to start with a snide remark about their thinking that rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Doesn’t Peston get something silly like half a million? No way that’s a reasonable salary, and MPs should keep pointing that out too.
Peston works for a private company. They can pay whatever they want to
Yep. Thats the difference between ITV and BBC - my TV licence money goes to BBC journalists even if I don't ever watch BBC (I do, and regard it as value, but would still change the system).
Huw Edwards – £425,000-£429,000 Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999 Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999 Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999 George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999 Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999 Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999 Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999 Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999 Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999 Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999 Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999 Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999 Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999 Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
And don't forget our lord Marcus Rashford who earnt £250,000 this week for playing 15 minutes of football
92 minutes
And a footballers job is not just the playing time on the pitch. They are not amateurs, coming of the shop floor in the morning to play. Their lives, diet, daily routines etc are highly controlled for the period that they are players. Their holiday is limited to a short window each year. They play over Christmas when many/most of us get a week off.
Of course the elite are paid a ludicrous amount for this, but there is no need to artificially make it look worse than it is.
I'm pretty sanguine about their pay. I don't pay for them apart from in the most indirect way.
I think I am too, in that (a) they are the best in the world at doing what they do (b) millions of people are happy to pay to watch them do it.
I am less happy about say BBC presenters who think they are the best in the world, when I think there are many many people who could do what they do.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
Regarding Anne-Marie Trevalyan's comments this morning, does the Number 10 Comms team not understand the damage this does?
Yesterday we had "storm in a teacup". Today we have a PM interested enough to spend time watching the debate, but not respectful enough to attend in person.
These are Secretaries of State. Being sent onto the media to try and smooth things over seemingly without the political antennae to understand how much worse they are making things.
Eustace yesterday: We still support reform, but listened to colleagues and paused the process. Paterson has now stepped down as an MP so there is no hurry, the specific issue is now resolved. Trevalyan today: The Prime Minister has a great deal of business to deal with. He respects the rights of the Commons to debate the issue and will consider its findings.
Anticipatory whataboutery, what a load of old cock.
Its fair to point out that whilst Labour are screaming about corruption,their own hands might not be entirely clean... they wont do anything about it of course for that very reason.. its just volume.
The big problem is not how much MPs are paid... 😂"When reading of the latest cock-up, scandal or crony controversy the same question floats to mind: how on earth is this person a member of parliament?"
Oh that's easy - anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money.
And there are enough constituents who believe they need their problem fixed now that it's now a 24/7 job.
MPs are amongst the top 3% of earners.
Do you think that 97% of the country lacks a brain?
That's a non-sequitur. It's quite possible for 97% of people to recognise that there are less stressful jobs than being an MP, with no particular implications for MPs' salaries.
Not really.
A lot of people in this country, earning considerably less than an MP, for example are running their own small business they have their life's savings invested into. If that fails then they may have nothing. Do you consider that less stressful than being an MP?
That's another non-sequitur. Your reply was to diswagree with "anyone with a brain knows there are way less stressful ways to earn money." You are now saying that a lot of people have more stressful jobs. Sure. Nonetheless, it is factually true that there are less stressful ways to earn money than being an MP.
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
Surely every respectable lap dancing club, and most of the disrespectful ones, are sensible enough to have an innocent-sounding ‘restaurant’ name on their till receipts and credit card bills?
Another anecdote: when my dad was in business, he bought a lot of stuff from a company called 'Summit Equipment Supplies' (*). His accountant queried it one year, asking why they were buying thousands of pounds worth of mountaineering equipment.
We weren't. Summit sold equipment to the construction and plant industries ...
(*) Which I'm glad to see is still going; they were great.
SKS could make hay. Whether he does or not remains to be seen. Labour needs to attack wider government corruption than just Owen Paterson, who will have gone anyway.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
— Matthew 7:1–5 KJV
The Sermon on the Whataboutery? Is that the new Tory spin line or are you urging Boris to sack the Home and Justice Secretaries?
Read what it says on the tin. All I am saying is that when it comes to corruption Labour had better be sure its hands are and have been clean.
There is corruption in all Parties, always has been, always will be.
As you say there is corruption in all parties as there is in all life. That is no excuse for not rooting it out. So yes Labour and LDs and SNP, etc will all have their scandals, but are you saying that we should give a free ride to what is happening because Labour have had issues in the past and will probably do so in the future.
Again if you apply your logic to its ridiculous conclusion (you had a similar example the other day) when a bank robber is in court do you think a defence of 'others have done it' is one that should get him off?
Again there is this appalling cynicism on your part.
Just out of interest if this was a Labour scandal (as I'm sure there will be) would you be criticizing the Tories for attacking Labour? I suspect not.
Anticipatory whataboutery, what a load of old cock.
Its fair to.poin out that whilst Labour are screaming about corruption,their own hands might not be entirely clean...
Ah, but the argument would be that lessons have been learned. And one would think that a such a careful and meticulous person as our PM would have noted yesterday's, and the day before's horrible examples.
Infeel sire Labour are going to shout about corruption purely and simply to keep.it in voters minds. I do hope Labour's front bench is clean....
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
And still with the whataboutery. Its absolutely not going to be the case that the Labour team are selling peerages or handing out 9-figure PPE contracts to donors.
You seem entirely content for your money to be snaffled in this way.
Quite: They are NOT "all the same", and if we start believing that they are, then trust in freedom and democracy evaporates. For every shabby Patterson scandal there are 10 faithful servants like David Amess. You may not agree with your political opponents but many, even most, are decent people. However, if and when there are rotten apples, no matter what the party, then they must be got rid of ASAP. Right now the smell of sleaze is overwelmingly coming from one side, and as even former Conservative PM Sir John Major has said, it is from the Tory side. That is a disgrace and Tory supporters should be as angry as the rest of us. Defending the indefensible will not do. Sort this or pay terminal electoral consequences is the message the voters are already giving you. If you don´t the writing will be on the wall not just for Boris, but his party too.
Someone tried to equate the scandal to Claudia Webbe, as if she means that no further criticism can be aimed at the Tories. Well she has been expelled from the party - as Jared wotzit was in Sheffield Hallam. Unlike the Tories who are welcoming back their own offender all sins forgiven. So even that isn't comparable.
There was surprise on here yesterday at Starmer giving the "big up" to Major. "WIll he defect to the Tories"??? This is stupid - you can disagree with the politics and respect the person. At least you used to be able to do so. We ended up with the Corbyn cult thinking anyone not in the cult being evil, and the Johnson circus cult has a similar view of its enemies who get rapidly expunged from the party. This has to stop.
On expenses. I worked for the Civil Service until I retired two years ago, in a job that involved extensive travel and overnight stays. The vast majority of colleagues were careful to claim the right amount, and were sometimes out of pocket. Random checks were carried out, though the system was largely based on trust.
Following the MP expenses scandal, the system was tightened dramatically. All first class travel was banned, and from staying in decent hotels we were pushed towards Premier Inns and Travelodge, especially in London. The random checks became more frequent, and indeed there was at least one sacking (a colleague working at her second home in France while claiming mileage expenses over here). I would imagine the bureaucracy cost more than the savings, but that's fair enough. I would imagine MPs are facing similar checks and that there's little or no abuse.
Anticipatory whataboutery, what a load of old cock.
Its fair to point out that whilst Labour are screaming about corruption,their own hands might not be entirely clean... they wont do anything about it of course for that very reason.. its just volume.
Again, can you point to Labour's front bench awarding 9-figure PPE contracts / peerages / dodgy planning decisions to their patrons friends and donors...?
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
Surely every respectable lap dancing club, and most of the disrespectful ones, are sensible enough to have an innocent-sounding ‘restaurant’ name on their till receipts and credit card bills?
Another anecdote: when my dad was in business, he bought a lot of stuff from a company called 'Summit Equipment Supplies' (*). His accountant queried it one year, asking why they were buying thousands of pounds worth of mountaineering equipment.
We weren't. Summit sold equipment to the construction and plant industries ...
(*) Which I'm glad to see is still going; they were great.
Presumably, the site foreman used to say to the junior “I need you to go get summit this morning”, and the name stuck..?
Corona booster side effects update (if anyone cares!). All effects gone by 48 hours, and 5 mile walk with the wife and dog happily completed yesterday morning.
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
Likewise on being surprised how vicious the Pfizer kick is. Had my booster on Saturday. Yesterday felt dreadful all day and have had a very rough night. Hoping it calms down as today progresses. Just drinking endless tea at the moment and staying under a blanket most of the time.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
I am happy to swerve my booster. Quite healthy, touch wood, and under 50. Not due til Feb anyway
Funny enough, since the bad reaction to my first AZ, I have gone from drinking 6-7 cups of tea a day to never drinking tea at all. Gave me a headache every time I had one
The fact the betting markets have only moved from 40% to 39% on Con Maj shows they don’t seem to overreact to recency as much as political news obsessives.
The problem is that being an MP is expensive (unless you are fortunate enough to be the MP for Westminster). Your constituents are - at the very least - a drive away, and could be a flight or long train journey away.
Unless you are in London, you will need two homes, and you will need to travel between them. And you probably need to staff an office.
We have attempted to square this circle by paying MPs a little, but allowing them to claim a lot of expenses. And inevitably this means there are lots of edge cases about what is acceptable behaviour.
You are in Westminster for a HoC vote, and you miss the last train to your constituency in Oxford. Is it acceptable to get a taxi (cost £250) home and to expense it?
I can think of hundreds of little things are at the discretion of MPs, and which may - or may not - be acceptable.
The answer is to have an allowance. No more fiddling expenses.
So the answer is, in other words, to give the MP a huge tax-free sum of public money, for which they are utterly unaccountable?
It’s also what the EU does.
No.
The answer is to recognize that - apart from committing distance - MPs have roughly the same number of constituents, and should therefore have similar costs.
I have my own business. I work to make sure that I always get the best value.
But when I was an employee, and there were two planes I could take, I would choose based on airmiles, not on value to my employer.
Why would MPs be different?
Much better for them to have North Shropshire constituency Ltd, that recieves £100,000/year in revenue and needs to pay all expenses out of that. If the constituency company wants to give that as cash to the MP, well he can defend it at the next General Election, and that would (of course) be taxable.
Employees booking with their ‘favourite’ airline for the points, has always been a problem for company expenses departments. The solution is to have a travel agent offer three quotes and make a logical choice.
Also, the rules they impose on everyone else, for example taking travel and accommodation out of IR35, are getting stricter and more onerous. MPs should have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
The expenses rules for an employee are very similar to that of an MP (heck they are actually worse as I can lord it over our local MPs by sitting in first class while if they do that they cannot claim the fare - it's why they now fly to Heathrow).
The only difference is that MPs do need to be in 2 separate places (constituency + Westminster) so the 40% rule for an employee is not applied to an MP.
The key point is that MPs' arrangements aren't intrinsically any more complex than those of most major companies - yes, there is a greater need for second homes which might need tailored arrangements - but all the other issues you can think of about expenses have been faced and answered by remuneration professionals before. I could easily write them an expenses policy, for an appropriate fee.
Company expenses policies work on the basis of clear rules or guidance, trusting your people to make sensible judgements within these (rather than trying to cover every eventuality), and line manager sign-off. The CEO would normally have theirs signed off by the Finance Director.
MPs are in the unusual situation of not having a line manager to sign them off, but I would expect the senior people in IPSA to keep an eye on things and 'have a word' if they see something that isn't serious but looks like somebody starting to push the boundaries.
Clearly you don't read the Sunday Times - Timpson's had to rewrite their expenses policy to explicitly exclude entertain in a lap dancing club after losing an Employment Tribunal upon firing someone who had visited such a club on expenses.
Surely every respectable lap dancing club, and most of the disrespectful ones, are sensible enough to have an innocent-sounding ‘restaurant’ name on their till receipts and credit card bills?
Another anecdote: when my dad was in business, he bought a lot of stuff from a company called 'Summit Equipment Supplies' (*). His accountant queried it one year, asking why they were buying thousands of pounds worth of mountaineering equipment.
We weren't. Summit sold equipment to the construction and plant industries ...
(*) Which I'm glad to see is still going; they were great.
Presumably, the site foreman used to say to the junior “I need you to go get summit this morning”, and the name stuck..?
They're apparently not doing it now, but from memory we often used to get Simons' and scissor hoists from them: height access kit. I guess that's where the name came from. summit = height.
Comments
Every fortnight they must attend or face sanctions. They must provide evidence of their constituency work. They must also declare any change in circumstances, such as 'extra income'. This extra shall be deducted from their pay.
https://twitter.com/Vincent_Rowlatt/status/1457302492509839361
Its like "Here is your new car" when its your old car with new wheels and a wrap. Like I said earlier, sneering arrogance...
It will look like he’s running scared if he doesn’t show
People will recall this from December 2019: Boris Johnson hides in fridge to avoid questions
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-boris-johnson-hides-fridge-21070803?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1457624214106685440
The most basic principle has to be "our representatives are no different from us".
We are 90% closer to that than we were before 2010, and now the expenses debate is about relatively small distinctions.
This is now moving on to consultancies and outside interests. I hope that it covers all of them. It needs to cover TU affiliation and donations, in addition to 'consultancies'. And lobbying by campaign groups and charities.
IMO APPGs are also quite a cesspit for outsiders wanting to buy influence.
People still get the fancy name but only limited role in parliament
Just as Boris cut Paterson adrift to try and limit the contagion, at what point will the wider Conservative Party find it expedient to ditch Boris for a new Mister Clean, like Rishi or Liz Truss, and blame Boris for any dodgy deals? Especially as there are Conservatives who, unlike Boris, do not need to wait for newspaper headlines or focus groups to know when something is wrong.
A lot of people in this country, earning considerably less than an MP, for example are running their own small business they have their life's savings invested into. If that fails then they may have nothing. Do you consider that less stressful than being an MP?
Anne Marie Trevelyan, international trade secretary, answered in one sentence.
@ayeshahazarika | @StigAbell | @annietrev https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1457620698915123204/video/1
Who has the most skeletons?
I'll admit to being caught out by how viciously the Pfizer booster hit me, after minimal effects from the two AZ shots. One of my colleagues has had three Pfizer shots and says his second was the worst.
Happy now I've had the three, and in a few days time will be about as protected as I can be for a while. We'll have to see how long the boosters last, and indeed if the healthy under 50's get offered them. Aside of vaccinating other nations, I don't see a drawback to offering boosters to all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/07/inflation-give-bank-england-smack-face/
It shouldn’t stop MPs referring to him earning getting paid as much as half of dozen of them do, but for some reason MPs don’t say things like that.
I've known tons of MPs over the years, and for the backbenchers what always strikes me is how they have a routine and surprisingly powerless job 'in the office', mostly doing what they are told by leaders and whips, with their calendars and speeches vetted and monitored, the rest of the time working away mostly forwarding correspondence from one place to another. Yet as soon as they leave the office they are seen as people of power. The more effective ones are those that are able to harness the 'soft power' they have in the real world to get things done. The less effective ones are the self-important types that think that tabling a question or some doomed amendment in the chamber, or making a speech to an audience of ten, is making the world a better place.
Not sure how willing I will be to sign up to yet another booster in the spring which seems to be one rumour.
An interesting dissection of Britain's growing corruption problem from someone who has lived under corrupt regimes abroad.
A fixed wage - so as they go forward, they fall behind their contemporaries.....
I have a suggestion - what about a system of promotion and pay increases? A career as an MP? At the moment, a back bencher of 30 yeas experience is paid the same as someone 20 minutes into the job....
Fiona Bruce – £405,000-£409,999
Andrew Marr – £335,000-£339,999
Emily Maitlis – £325,000-£329,999
George Alagiah – £325,000-£329,999
Jeremy Vine – £295,000-£299,999
Sophie Raworth – £280,000-£284,999
Mishal Husain – £275,000-£279,999
Nick Robinson – £270,000-£274,999
Evan Davis – £270,000-£274,999
Laura Kuenssberg – £260,000-£264,999
Martha Kearney – £250,000-£254,999
Naga Munchetty – £255,000-£259,999
Katya Adler – £220,000-£224,999
Kirsty Wark – £210,000-£214,999
…and probably a few more I missed. All way more than the PM, let alone a lowly MP.
(Source)
Why should the MP for the safest seat in the country be paid more than one who has to fight for his/her seat every time?
Times columnist and former MP Matthew Parris says there is a "a sense of the fish rotting from the head down" in this Conservative government.
@ayeshahazarika | @StigAbell | @MatthewParris3 https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1457630322003152896/video/1
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
A Tory majority
Tories losing their majority
Tories keeping power with or without friendly others
Labour winning a majority
Labour forming the next government alone
Labour forming the next government with support
Labour having more seats than any other party
No new stable government able to be formed following the next election, leading to fresh elections or some other constitutional nightmare.
Trying to put a percentage chance on each of these would be an interesting exercise. FWIW I think the last has a higher possibility than usual.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/politically-connected-arrests-sparks-row-22072301
First rule of redevelopment club, is not talking about redevelopment club.
Which is why they should be so much more professional about what they do than they are. I know Peston's no longer BBC, but his work over the Covid crisis would have been hilarious if it had not been so serious. Even when drowning out of his depth, he jus swum deeper. Much of the BBC is no different.
(A simple piece of advice to the BBC. You have lots of experts who are excellent communicators. If a big story breaks, don't give it to the big name who knows f'all about the topic. Put the expert in front of the camera.)
The Saj says get the booster (or your first shot if you missed it) and that changes will be made today to enable booking after five months but with the jab not given till six. But the use of "invites" as a noun to mean "invitations" is vexing (and the national comma shortage continues: Brexit, I'll be bound):-
More than 13 million invites, including texts, letters and emails, have already been sent to eligible people in England so far asking them to book their booster online through the National Booking Service. The additional letters due to land next week will mean around 16 million invites have been sent in England since the NHS booster programme began.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-urged-to-get-covid-19-boosters-as-almost-10m-people-jabbed
Funny enough, since the bad reaction to my first AZ, I have gone from drinking 6-7 cups of tea a day to never drinking tea at all. Gave me a headache every time I had one
If you buy crisps then you get crisps. If you watch TV but not the BBC you still have to pay the BBC. If you don't eat crisps you don't have to fund their manufacture.
Nearly three decades ago, I started working in London for a company that had bought in a new computer system (replacing a 1970s Bull mainframe...). The vendor's main representative was a larger-than-life Irishman, witty, jovial, and fun - and had access to what we called his 'magic expense card'. For three months, I cooked no meal as he'd take us all out for food (*).
One Monday, he didn't come in to work. He finally reappeared on the Thursday, having had to fly to head office to explain himself. On the Saturday he'd gone to the races, and at an auction after the races, had bought a nag on his expenses card. The sale went through, and he had to sort out the mess - at a large financial cost to himself.
I've no idea if the story was true or not: but I do know he was in trouble with head office, and his colleagues said that an event at the races was involved ...
(*) I hasten to add I was just a junior grunt, working as a temp. I had no power or influence.
MPs have an independent pay review body, and - I assume - benchmarks.
There are hundreds of MPs who get extra boosts or allowances for responsibilty or position. Some of them are backbenchers.
If I drive a Toyota, I shouldn't also have to pay Ford for the privilege.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/people-urged-to-get-covid-19-boosters-as-almost-10m-people-jabbed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59203695
Incidentally, the death of the four paddleboarders in Wales hasn't been as big a story as I expected. A horrible tragedy.
Corruption in government is the fault of government. Failure to offer us better is the fault of opposition.
Of course the elite are paid a ludicrous amount for this, but there is no need to artificially make it look worse than it is.
You seem entirely content for your money to be snaffled in this way.
https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1457637876754231296
https://twitter.com/awlies/status/1457060085130305542
What makes you think a backbench MP would be good enough to be such an IT worker in London?
What makes you think that an IT worker in London is the contemporary of a backbench MP? Why aren't the other 97% of the country that earn less than MPs their contemporaries?
If, indeed, some corruption story comes out about someone in Labour's front bench, GOOD. The extra sunlight being thrown on this issue ought to sterilise corruption across the whole of parliament. I care less about who gains and loses from this than I do about stamping it out.
Mine have a tendency to land on the floor.
My letters arrive.
Such be to me, she said, as when the Invites
Of Iuno summon you to Venus Rites.
—Ovid’s Metamorphosis Englished by G.S., 1628
I am less happy about say BBC presenters who think they are the best in the world, when I think there are many many people who could do what they do.
Yesterday we had "storm in a teacup". Today we have a PM interested enough to spend time watching the debate, but not respectful enough to attend in person.
These are Secretaries of State. Being sent onto the media to try and smooth things over seemingly without the political antennae to understand how much worse they are making things.
Eustace yesterday: We still support reform, but listened to colleagues and paused the process. Paterson has now stepped down as an MP so there is no hurry, the specific issue is now resolved.
Trevalyan today: The Prime Minister has a great deal of business to deal with. He respects the rights of the Commons to debate the issue and will consider its findings.
Its not that difficult.
Its fair to point out that whilst Labour are screaming about corruption,their own hands might not be entirely clean... they wont do anything about it of course for that very reason.. its just volume.
41 hours - £9,750 an hour!
🤑 https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1457641766337880069/photo/1
We weren't. Summit sold equipment to the construction and plant industries ...
(*) Which I'm glad to see is still going; they were great.
Again if you apply your logic to its ridiculous conclusion (you had a similar example the other day) when a bank robber is in court do you think a defence of 'others have done it' is one that should get him off?
Again there is this appalling cynicism on your part.
Just out of interest if this was a Labour scandal (as I'm sure there will be) would you be criticizing the Tories for attacking Labour? I suspect not.
There was surprise on here yesterday at Starmer giving the "big up" to Major. "WIll he defect to the Tories"??? This is stupid - you can disagree with the politics and respect the person. At least you used to be able to do so. We ended up with the Corbyn cult thinking anyone not in the cult being evil, and the Johnson circus cult has a similar view of its enemies who get rapidly expunged from the party. This has to stop.
Following the MP expenses scandal, the system was tightened dramatically. All first class travel was banned, and from staying in decent hotels we were pushed towards Premier Inns and Travelodge, especially in London. The random checks became more frequent, and indeed there was at least one sacking (a colleague working at her second home in France while claiming mileage expenses over here). I would imagine the bureaucracy cost more than the savings, but that's fair enough. I would imagine MPs are facing similar checks and that there's little or no abuse.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1457643070728675328
They're apparently not doing it now, but from memory we often used to get Simons' and scissor hoists from them: height access kit. I guess that's where the name came from. summit = height.