Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Tory Sleaze narrative is not going away – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 10 in General
The Tory Sleaze narrative is not going away – politicalbetting.com

The vice-chair of the Conservative Party has resigned because he feels he can no longer defend the PM's handling of corruption allegations.This is big.https://t.co/T0oircROWi

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    First (btw I'm not 15)
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    Adam Boulton on leaving Sky News: ‘We baby boomers have had our day’
    After spending 33 years at the channel, Boulton is departing Sky News. It’s over for the public school, Oxbridge, male old guard, he says

    Paywall that I can't access -

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/adam-boulton-on-leaving-sky-news-we-baby-boomers-have-had-our-day-hhkrv33sb
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589
    edited November 10
    One thing I wondered was his hourly rate.

    Withers appeared to be paying him almost £1,000 per hour.

    I can get most property QCs for that, quite commonly substantially less. Are they making a loss? Or is he doing more hours than reported?
  • It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,589

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    We have to move MP office costs out of the category of expenses, for a start.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
  • Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    I would assume it being near Christmas apathy may be in evidence but both seats retained with reduced majorities, though North Shropshire may surprise and it is being rumoured Rory may stand
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    edited November 10
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455
    Labour doing a good job keeping this going. I expect a few on the Tory side aren't disappointed either. Boris is toast in my view. He will be gone within 6 months is my expectation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 10
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Holding any seat in a by election by a party in government which has been in power for 11 years would be a success.

    By the same stage in 1990 and 2008 Thatcher's Tories and Brown's Labour were losing seats in by elections on big swings eg in 1990 the Tories lost North Staffordshire and Eastbourne, in 2008 Labour lost Crewe and Nantwich in by elections

  • Don't worry TSE - no Vince

    England 1 Jos Buttler (wk), 2 Jonny Bairstow, 3 Dawid Malan, 4 Eoin Morgan (capt), 5 Liam Livingstone, 6 Moeen Ali, 7 Sam Billings, 8 Chris Woakes, 9 Chris Jordan, 10 Adil Rashid, 11 Mark Wood

    New Zealand 1 Martin Guptill, 2 Daryl Mitchell, 3 Kane Williamson (capt), 4 Devon Conway (wk), 5 Glenn Phillips, 6 James Neesham, 7 Mitchell Santner, 8 Adam Milne, 9 Tim Southee, 10 Ish Sodhi, 11 Trent Boult.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Ah. Now the Frost statement makes even more sense. https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/1458406449793601537

    Here we go again, that's the US Congress, Ireland and other EU countries, a majority in Northern Ireland, and Conservative peers telling the UK government to stop doing what they intend to do.

    https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2021/11/meeks-keating-blumenauer-and-boyle-issue-statement-on-uk-s-threat-to-invoke-article-16-of-the-northern-ireland-protocol

    And did a single one of those assorted nobodies vote to Leave?
    Not sure why you think that matters. Is this a HYUFD-style purity test that (in)validates all future opinions?
    Because loser's whining about Brexit getting implemented is irrelevant. Yeah we get it you don't like Brexit but you lost so get over yourselves already.

    I couldn't care less if you got a list of 11 million names of people who said the government were doing the wrong thing, if they all voted against previously, then we already knew that! It isn't new information.
    That sounds an awful lot like a yes, to me. Their 2021 opinion is worthless because their 2016 vote was "wrong". That's not an attitude that's helpful for good future policy.
    It pretty much is a yes, yes.

    PS most of those named didn't vote wrong either, they didn't vote as all as they're not British which again makes their pronouncements worthless.

    That counterparties don't want Britain to place Britain's interests first isn't interesting.
    So Leavers have their Leavy conversations, and Remainers have their Remainy conversations, and nobody listens to the other. And that doesn't strike you as a toxic, regressive attitude to politics?
    Is this your first day?

    Yes it's a toxic regressive attitude and it's what is happening already for years with FBPE.

    The circlejerk of people Scott constantly quotes repeating for the umpteenth time why they dislike Brexit, getting retweeted by the FBPE crowd, isn't productive or effective.

    If people want to engage with something new then that's interesting, but telling us that Sir John Major doesn't like Brexit, or that Ireland don't want Article 16 invoked is about as productive as telling us that Nigel Farage doesn't like the EU, or that the DUP do want Article 16 invoked.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    It’s interesting to observe how these things take off and gather their own momentum, isn’t it?

    In a parallel universe somewhere, the Tories got Paterson to make a decent mea culpa and take his 30-day suspension, the recall in his seat either did not get off the ground or, if it did, they successfully defended the seat - especially had they chosen a fresh candidate.

    Instead, the strategic brilliance and sure-footed judgement of our PM has led them well and truly into the mire.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,786
    edited November 10
    The Black Caps win the toss and will bowl first.

    England are going to lose this semi final.

    Billings in for Roy.
  • Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,011

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    The MPs pension is also a very very generous one.... I dont think MPs need to worry too much
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    JBriskin3 said:

    Adam Boulton on leaving Sky News: ‘We baby boomers have had our day’
    After spending 33 years at the channel, Boulton is departing Sky News. It’s over for the public school, Oxbridge, male old guard, he says

    Paywall that I can't access -

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/adam-boulton-on-leaving-sky-news-we-baby-boomers-have-had-our-day-hhkrv33sb

    R4 are featuring this right now.

    Don’t you get the feeling that pressure is building up behind a dam that is going to burst? With huge implications for our politics and our society.

    The transition of power to the next generation is going to be a bumpy one, IMHO.
  • The Black Caps win the toss and will bowl first.

    England are going to lose this semi final.

    Billings in for Roy.

    I'm happy England are going first.

    Got an ACCA on England to win, get highest first partnership, highest powerplay, most 4s and most 6s.

    Easier to do that if batting first as don't run out of runs to chase. Ideally England smash it all over the park, NZ get a duck in the first over and we bowl them out.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455

    The Black Caps win the toss and will bowl first.

    England are going to lose this semi final.

    Billings in for Roy.

    Fucking hell, ever the optimist :wink:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    The MPs pension is also a very very generous one.... I dont think MPs need to worry too much
    The pension won't amount to much if you're campaigning on a swing seat, and are afraid you might only get four or five years in the job, if that.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    IanB2 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Adam Boulton on leaving Sky News: ‘We baby boomers have had our day’
    After spending 33 years at the channel, Boulton is departing Sky News. It’s over for the public school, Oxbridge, male old guard, he says

    Paywall that I can't access -

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/adam-boulton-on-leaving-sky-news-we-baby-boomers-have-had-our-day-hhkrv33sb

    R4 are featuring this right now.

    Don’t you get the feeling that pressure is building up behind a dam that is going to burst? With huge implications for our politics and our society.

    The transition of power to the next generation is going to be a bumpy one, IMHO.
    Sounds like Woke nonsense to me.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    The MPs pension is also a very very generous one.... I dont think MPs need to worry too much
    The pension won't amount to much if you're campaigning on a swing seat, and are afraid you might only get four or five years in the job, if that.
    Nick Palmer’s pension was decent, but not massively generous.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    "Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable"

    You what? It is nearly three times the average wage. Downsides to the job? Like having to get up every day at 5am to take a bus to your factory shift and be at the mercy of a tetchy foreman?

    MPs are compensated for all the "downsides".
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    "Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable"

    You what? It is nearly three times the average wage. Downsides to the job? Like having to get up every day at 5am to take a bus to your factory shift and be at the mercy of a tetchy foreman?

    MPs are compensated for all the "downsides".
    And if they don't want those downsides they don't have to go for the job. There's no shortage of people who do.

    Maybe society would be different if politics wasn't dominated by lawyers who think triple the national average wage is peanuts?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 10

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just getting mainly the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are top 1% roles (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    edited November 10
    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    edited November 10

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    The MPs pension is also a very very generous one.... I dont think MPs need to worry too much
    The pension won't amount to much if you're campaigning on a swing seat, and are afraid you might only get four or five years in the job, if that.
    Nick Palmer’s pension was decent, but not massively generous.
    On a technical point: we don't know if he made the extra payments open to many members of such final salary schemes.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Yep, the evidence that money on the side or bigger salaries is the only way to attract the cream of the crop such as IDS and Owen Paterson is most persuasive.
  • HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 937
    edited November 10

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    It's way, way above what I earn without the allowances and expenses.

    But it's not "unimaginable".

    Poor people can and do imagine winning the lottery.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1458427065561141253

    Heather Long
    @byHeatherLong
    BREAKING: U.S. inflation was up 6.2% in October over a year ago. That’s the highest inflation in 31 years.

    Inflation was up 0.9% in Oct. alone, a much higher increase than 0.4% in Sept. and 0.3% in August.

    Prices are rising for food, energy, shelter, used cars and new cars.


    Also:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/10/why-the-federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-must-go

    Economic policymaking requires careful judgment and a recognition of trade-offs. How important is inflation versus jobs and growth? How confident can we be that markets are efficient, stable, fair, and competitive on their own? How concerned should we be about inequality? America’s two main parties have always had markedly different but clearly articulated perspectives on these matters (at least until the Republicans’ descent into populist madness).

    To my mind, the Democrats are right to worry more about the consequences of joblessness. The 2008 crisis showed that unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. Moreover, we know that marginalised groups have been brought into the economy and wage disparities reduced only when labour markets are tight.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,742
    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1458427065561141253

    Heather Long
    @byHeatherLong
    BREAKING: U.S. inflation was up 6.2% in October over a year ago. That’s the highest inflation in 31 years.

    Inflation was up 0.9% in Oct. alone, a much higher increase than 0.4% in Sept. and 0.3% in August.

    Prices are rising for food, energy, shelter, used cars and new cars.


    Also:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/10/why-the-federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-must-go

    Economic policymaking requires careful judgment and a recognition of trade-offs. How important is inflation versus jobs and growth? How confident can we be that markets are efficient, stable, fair, and competitive on their own? How concerned should we be about inequality? America’s two main parties have always had markedly different but clearly articulated perspectives on these matters (at least until the Republicans’ descent into populist madness).

    To my mind, the Democrats are right to worry more about the consequences of joblessness. The 2008 crisis showed that unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. Moreover, we know that marginalised groups have been brought into the economy and wage disparities reduced only when labour markets are tight.

    It's astonishing that there are still people who think inflation and the supply crunch is Brexit related. The level of tunnel vision some people have is beyond help.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    "Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable"

    You what? It is nearly three times the average wage. Downsides to the job? Like having to get up every day at 5am to take a bus to your factory shift and be at the mercy of a tetchy foreman?

    MPs are compensated for all the "downsides".
    It's the 'unimaginable' word that I disagree with. 'Unattainable' might be better.

    They are not compensated for the downsides; not in the least. David Amess sadly suffered from one rather extreme downside, as did Jo Cox before him. Then there's all the abuse, vitriol and threats the job attracts from knobs nice people online. Or the way people will look for ill in anything you do, even when you are cleaner than clean. Or the way every part of your life might be placed under the microscope at any moment, or any words you utter in public - or even private - might be used against you.

    Yes, there are worse jobs. There are jobs that are far worse, and which should be paid much more; and those which should attract less pay (although that is, of course, always arguable). But being an MP is an unusual job, with a role that is often temporary and multifaceted.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I quite admire anyone who puts themselves up for election, knowing all of the above. They have a bravery that I don't.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1458427065561141253

    Heather Long
    @byHeatherLong
    BREAKING: U.S. inflation was up 6.2% in October over a year ago. That’s the highest inflation in 31 years.

    Inflation was up 0.9% in Oct. alone, a much higher increase than 0.4% in Sept. and 0.3% in August.

    Prices are rising for food, energy, shelter, used cars and new cars.


    Also:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/10/why-the-federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-must-go

    Economic policymaking requires careful judgment and a recognition of trade-offs. How important is inflation versus jobs and growth? How confident can we be that markets are efficient, stable, fair, and competitive on their own? How concerned should we be about inequality? America’s two main parties have always had markedly different but clearly articulated perspectives on these matters (at least until the Republicans’ descent into populist madness).

    To my mind, the Democrats are right to worry more about the consequences of joblessness. The 2008 crisis showed that unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. Moreover, we know that marginalised groups have been brought into the economy and wage disparities reduced only when labour markets are tight.

    NZ (the sainted Jacinda) had figured out a way to keep unemployment down.

    Allow those in receipt of the unemployment benefit to no longer register as a “jobseeker”. Thus, they are no longer need to be included in ILO definition of unemployed.

    Trebles all round!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    It's way, way above what I earn without the allowances and expenses.

    But it's not "unimaginable".

    Poor people can and do imagine winning the lottery.
    But surely not winning the lottery every year? There's a difference between annual salary and a one-off windfall.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 10

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £160,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866, just in and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that, closer to £130,000.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    You have to be careful with a statistic like that. A top 5% salary will be paid to more than 5% of the working population over the course of their working life, because for some it will be a salary that they receive at the pinnacle of their career, and so only for a small proportion of their career.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1458427065561141253

    Heather Long
    @byHeatherLong
    BREAKING: U.S. inflation was up 6.2% in October over a year ago. That’s the highest inflation in 31 years.

    Inflation was up 0.9% in Oct. alone, a much higher increase than 0.4% in Sept. and 0.3% in August.

    Prices are rising for food, energy, shelter, used cars and new cars.


    Also:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/10/why-the-federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-must-go

    Economic policymaking requires careful judgment and a recognition of trade-offs. How important is inflation versus jobs and growth? How confident can we be that markets are efficient, stable, fair, and competitive on their own? How concerned should we be about inequality? America’s two main parties have always had markedly different but clearly articulated perspectives on these matters (at least until the Republicans’ descent into populist madness).

    To my mind, the Democrats are right to worry more about the consequences of joblessness. The 2008 crisis showed that unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable. Moreover, we know that marginalised groups have been brought into the economy and wage disparities reduced only when labour markets are tight.

    It's astonishing that there are still people who think inflation and the supply crunch is Brexit related. The level of tunnel vision some people have is beyond help.
    It's amusing to read the comments below the Tweet from Dem supporters. Lots of "it's a global issue" etc. etc.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £165,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866 and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    The PM has a very different amount of prestige and power than an individual making more cash in the private sector.

    If your sole ambition is furthering your own bank account then you shouldn't be in politics. That's what the private sector should be for.
  • @Sandpit are you at the game?

    Crowds look three quarters empty as it stands.
  • Taz said:

    The Black Caps win the toss and will bowl first.

    England are going to lose this semi final.

    Billings in for Roy.

    Fucking hell, ever the optimist :wink:
    Trying to do a reverse DavidL and uncurse this England team.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    We have to move MP office costs out of the category of expenses, for a start.
    +1 an MP's office isn't an expense it's an operational cost and should be treated like that.

    A better question is should an MPs office be appointed by the MP or should it be almost part of the civil service with each MP having an office of say 4 staff paid for directly by Parliament.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    I guess it's time for many of those high-earning, extraordinarily hard-working PBers to take the next 3.5 hours off to watch the cricket?
    NZ to win, I fear.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,435
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £160,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866, just in and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that, closer to £130,000.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £160,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866, just in and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that, closer to £130,000.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Where did I say that - my point was that these a significant proportion of the voters who elect an MP every x years.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    I guess it's time for many of those high-earning, extraordinarily hard-working PBers to take the next 3.5 hours off to watch the cricket?
    NZ to win, I fear.

    Why? It's on in the corner of my third monitor / the one that sits under the others and usually has outlook / teams on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,786
    edited November 10
    On topic, apart from the minor breach, Cox is fine, what he has done is permissible however what IDS and Boris Johnson have done is a shocking lack of probity and the rozzers should get involved.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Where did I say that - my point was that these a significant proportion of the voters who elect an MP every x years.
    Which, to me, is not a relevant consideration.

    Rather, what are analogue professions paid?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Why not go the whole hog and call for the abolition of universal suffrage?
  • I guess it's time for many of those high-earning, extraordinarily hard-working PBers to take the next 3.5 hours off to watch the cricket?
    NZ to win, I fear.

    I can multitask.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,959
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £160,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866, just in and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that, closer to £130,000.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    That's not the 1%, thats the hoi polloi. Us 1% wait until we inherit having to make do with our trust funds beforehand.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510

    On topic, apart from the minor breach, Cox is fine, what he has done is permissible however what IDS and Boris Johnson have done is a shocking lack of probity and the rozzers should get involved.

    Yes. For Cox, it’s basically bad optics.

    On the evidence we have so far, Iain “Ooohh, Betsy” Duncan Smith needs to explain why he shouldn’t resign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 10
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    Yes, it is attractive to 95% of the population, not attractive to the top 5% of earners though. However I think just attracting the top 10% is fine for MPs.

    Though we do ideally want some of the top 1% to seek to become PM or join the Cabinet, it is there that the pay needs to be raised a bit to ensure they are a top 1% role (currently they are not, even if you may get Chequers and Chevening while in the role)
    Or the top 1% can choose to go into politics for prestige and not money making.

    If they're just interested in making money then they should stay in the private sector doing so and their contribution to politics can include the taxes they pay going to further our politics.
    In the private sector the top 1% would be seeking to earn well over the £160,000 level needed to enter the top 1% of earners bracket, many would be getting £500k - £1 million a year plus.

    However the PM only gets £161,866, just in and Cabinet Ministers get a bit less than that, closer to £130,000.

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'

    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
  • Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    One thing that worries me: if things continue like this, it's going to become impossible to contemplate being an MP without either a great socking amount of money in the bank, or the support of an organisation that is beyond 'reproach'. It's especially bad if you only get to serve one term, and have to try to pick up a career afterwards.

    In this current (IMO toxic) environment, I'd be trying to make as few expenses claims as possible, even where they are reasonable - and be unfairly out-of-pocket as a result.

    That is the paradox at the heart of British politics - £80,000 is wealth unimaginable if your alternative is the factory floor or stacking shelves in tesco or... It is peanuts if your alternative is the courts or accountancy or...
    But that's kind-of my point. Not only is £80k not wealth unimaginable: even with expenses, there are lots of downsides to the job. Having to essentially work in two places (constituency and Westminster) is on, with all the family disruption that causes.

    As I said, I'd be very hesitant to take anything other than the absolute minimum on expenses, and that £80k would soon lessen given costs.
    I read that £80k is still within the top 5% of salaries in the UK, even without the allowances & expenses not available to most. If that's the case it's wealth unimaginable to the 95% of the population who can't imagine ever earning it.
    It's way, way above what I earn without the allowances and expenses.

    But it's not "unimaginable".

    Poor people can and do imagine winning the lottery.
    But surely not winning the lottery every year? There's a difference between annual salary and a one-off windfall.
    £80,000 per annum:

    Unattainable? Almost certainly.

    But unimaginable? Absolutely bloody not.

    We have footballers earning four or five times that EACH WEEK, but the poor are too pathetically minded to even imagine 80k pa?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Why not go the whole hog and call for the abolition of universal suffrage?
    Why don’t you go the whole hog and force MPs to work on zero-hour contracts, accessible to the public via an Uber-type app?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    edited November 10

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's worth a note that London MPs get an extra 11-12k in "London living" and "London accommodation" allowances.
    I haven't dug deep enough to work out whether this is tax free or taxable - the former would make it 23-24k, which is your 30% for the 72 London MPs.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9148/

    I'm not really clear of a rationale for "community leaders" to be defined by income.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634
    edited November 10
    eek said:

    I guess it's time for many of those high-earning, extraordinarily hard-working PBers to take the next 3.5 hours off to watch the cricket?
    NZ to win, I fear.

    Why? It's on in the corner of my third monitor / the one that sits under the others and usually has outlook / teams on.
    The key to success is effective multitasking. ;)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    edited November 10

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Why not go the whole hog and call for the abolition of universal suffrage?
    Why don’t you go the whole hog and force MPs to work on zero-hour contracts, accessible to the public via an Uber-type app?
    Not a bad idea. Exile would be a useful option to click, cf. Athens of old.

    Edit: though at least one MP seems to have been happy to be a MP in exile.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Why not go the whole hog and call for the abolition of universal suffrage?
    Why don’t you go the whole hog and force MPs to work on zero-hour contracts, accessible to the public via an Uber-type app?
    Pay them an attendance allowance and publish their expense claims? That would bring them into line with the House of Lords.
  • Just 13 from the first three overs. Not looking good for my bet including highest powerplay score.

    Get a move on Bairstow!
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594

    Just 13 from the first three overs. Not looking good for my bet including highest powerplay score.

    Get a move on Bairstow!

    Just get off strike. Sick of watching players scratch out trying to hit boundaries whilst a mucb better player is stuck at the other end starved of strike.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Eagles, as with expenses, it's entirely possible those who have actually done wrong (without legal or 'just' moral) will not face the scrutiny they should because an inept, sensationalist media is just intent on tarring everyone with the same brush.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    It'd be better than Corbyn's win in 2017
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    It'd be better than Corbyn's win in 2017
    I'm not sure what your point is. If you think I voted for Corbyn, you're wrong.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    In a by election? Yes.

    In a General Election? Yes, so long as the rest of the results went ok.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Why not go the whole hog and call for the abolition of universal suffrage?
    Why don’t you go the whole hog and force MPs to work on zero-hour contracts, accessible to the public via an Uber-type app?
    Not a bad idea. Exile would be a useful option to click, cf. Athens of old.

    Edit: though at least one MP seems to have been happy to be a MP in exile.
    Jim Gordon : No lawyer, no witnesses? What sort of due process is this?
    Dr. Jonathan Crane : Your guilt has been determined. This is merely a sentencing hearing. Now, what will it be? Death or Exile?
    Jim Gordon : Crane, if you think we're going to walk out on that ice willingly, you got another thing coming!
    Dr. Jonathan Crane : So it's death then?
    Jim Gordon : Looks that way.
    Dr. Jonathan Crane : Very well. Death!
    [smashes gavel]
    Dr. Jonathan Crane : By exile!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    edited November 10
    I can’t say whether the quality of MPs has declined, but I will stay that the esteem of the MP profession has deteriorated.

    Who, now, goes into politics?

    I know this is a cliched point, but it is relevant to the question of MP remuneration. Those who wish to pay to pay them tuppence need to ask whether MPs have too great or too little responsibility, and whether they are paid proportionately.

    It has got to the point that if my child said they wished to become an MP I would ask if they didn’t have more serious ambitions.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594
    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    It'd be better than Corbyn's win in 2017
    I'm not sure what your point is. If you think I voted for Corbyn, you're wrong.
    I don't give a fig how you vote or have a clue who you are or what you think. My point is a win is a win, vs the Corbyn mob claiming moral victories when they lost. The point is pretty clear.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    eek said:

    I don’t get this idea that £80k is “wealth unimaginable”. It’s politics-of-envy stuff.

    It’s about comparable with GPs, junior to mid management, junior barristers etc.

    Most professional Londoners can aspire to earning 80k+ at some stage in their working career.

    There are only 650 MPs, and we expect them to act - quite literally - as leaders of their respective communities. I personally think they are around 30-50% underpaid.

    It's unimaginable for a lot of people who are working and have ended up in dead end low paid work.

    Which means it's unimaginable wealth to a lot of voters even though posters on here look it at and go hmm, how much extra hassle for how little money.
    It is not clear to me why “those who have ended up in dead end low paid jobs” should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs.
    Of course, pre IPSA it was accepted that MPs, who had by that point ended up in mostly dead end low paid jobs, should be the arbiter on how we remunerate MPs :wink: IPSA, of course, recommended a big pay rise.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    What's the main qualities of being an MP ?
    In this parliament if you're on the Conservative side it looks like a combination of slavish obedience and being able to not answer questions.
    Now there are excellent MPs in the house, but it looks a very optional extra. Is it worth paying them £83k a year to trot through the house like nodding dogs ?
    And the same is true of any parliament where there's a Gov't majority.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    I can’t say whether the quality of MPs has declined, but I will stay that the esteem of the MP profession has deteriorated.

    Who, now, goes into politics?

    I know this is a cliched point, but it is relevant to the question of MP remuneration. Those who wish to pay to pay them tuppence need to ask whether MPs have too great or too little responsibility, and whether they are paid proportionately.

    It has got to the point that if my child said they wished to become an MP I would ask if they didn’t have more serious ambitions.

    I would ask them if they wish to spend their life being asked to do things 24/7 from social media and being criticised by people for not doing things quickly enough.

    A lot of the problems that MPs have to deal with is the unrealistic expectations of their constituents.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015
    edited November 10
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    The answer to this question is yes.

    Because it is Winner Takes All.

    Labour retained Batley & Spen by 35 to 34.

    Labour won. That is what is remembered. It is not remembered that Labour shed vote share, or went backwards, or nearly lost.

    If the Tories retain OB&S by 10 %, 1 %, 0.1 %, 0.01 % or even by a solitary vote, then that is job well done for the Tories.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    eek said:

    I can’t say whether the quality of MPs has declined, but I will stay that the esteem of the MP profession has deteriorated.

    Who, now, goes into politics?

    I know this is a cliched point, but it is relevant to the question of MP remuneration. Those who wish to pay to pay them tuppence need to ask whether MPs have too great or too little responsibility, and whether they are paid proportionately.

    It has got to the point that if my child said they wished to become an MP I would ask if they didn’t have more serious ambitions.

    I would ask them if they wish to spend their life being asked to do things 24/7 from social media and being criticised by people for not doing things quickly enough.

    A lot of the problems that MPs have to deal with is the unrealistic expectations of their constituents.
    Whereas I think that the expectations are (largely) reasonable, but that MPs are under-recognised and under-paid for attempting to meet them.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    You don't have to pay people a fortune to be MPs. Many people think they could do a better job and many could. Better someone who has doubts than someone who is sure they know better than anyone else.

    Based on experience, I'd eliminate lawyers and journalists, and anyone with a PPE degree.

    And me, because I know everything.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    It'd be better than Corbyn's win in 2017
    I'm not sure what your point is. If you think I voted for Corbyn, you're wrong.
    I don't give a fig how you vote or have a clue who you are or what you think. My point is a win is a win, vs the Corbyn mob claiming moral victories when they lost. The point is pretty clear.
    Right. Ok. So that's a yes from you then.
    It was a genuine question, no need to be so hormonal about it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    Pulpstar said:

    What's the main qualities of being an MP ?
    In this parliament if you're on the Conservative side it looks like a combination of slavish obedience and being able to not answer questions.
    Now there are excellent MPs in the house, but it looks a very optional extra. Is it worth paying them £83k a year to trot through the house like nodding dogs ?
    And the same is true of any parliament where there's a Gov't majority.

    An issue might be that a 'nodding dog' MP at votes might actually be a brilliant constituency MP, and good at looking after the interests of constituents; whilst a firebrand rebel might be an awful constituency MP.

    One thing we don't get is any metrics of how hard MPs work in, and for, their constituencies. And that's a major (the major?) part of the role.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    eek said:

    I can’t say whether the quality of MPs has declined, but I will stay that the esteem of the MP profession has deteriorated.

    Who, now, goes into politics?

    I know this is a cliched point, but it is relevant to the question of MP remuneration. Those who wish to pay to pay them tuppence need to ask whether MPs have too great or too little responsibility, and whether they are paid proportionately.

    It has got to the point that if my child said they wished to become an MP I would ask if they didn’t have more serious ambitions.

    I would ask them if they wish to spend their life being asked to do things 24/7 from social media and being criticised by people for not doing things quickly enough.

    A lot of the problems that MPs have to deal with is the unrealistic expectations of their constituents.
    Whereas I think that the expectations are (largely) reasonable, but that MPs are under-recognised and under-paid for attempting to meet them.
    That may be true, my point was that I wouldn't want to be an MP regardless of the money being offered - the demands of the job are just too great.
  • Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    It'd be better than Corbyn's win in 2017
    I'm not sure what your point is. If you think I voted for Corbyn, you're wrong.
    I don't give a fig how you vote or have a clue who you are or what you think. My point is a win is a win, vs the Corbyn mob claiming moral victories when they lost. The point is pretty clear.
    Right. Ok. So that's a yes from you then.
    It was a genuine question, no need to be so hormonal about it.
    40/39 is a good result.
    39/40 is a bad result.

    That's the cruel nature of First Past The Post.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749
    39,676 cases in Germany yesterday. Another new record, with test positivity well over 10%.

    image
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    In a by election? Yes.

    In a General Election? Yes, so long as the rest of the results went ok.
    Well, now we're getting to the nub of my question, which is what conclusions we can draw from the result. If the Conservatives won my 40pp that's better news than if they won by 1pp. Yes, of course it makes no difference to the result of this constituency, but by-elections do offer (imperfect) signposts to the wider political fortunes of parties. Which is why I think everyone will agree that maintaining the current percentages would be an unambiguous success.

    At what point do we slip from "still good news" to "about expected" and then into "disappointing" and finally into "disaster"?
  • 40/1 from the powerplay.

    Not good enough.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594
    Need a Malan cameo 7 off 15 like a hole in the head here.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Malan in to bring a bit of calm to the innings.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017

    Pulpstar said:

    What's the main qualities of being an MP ?
    In this parliament if you're on the Conservative side it looks like a combination of slavish obedience and being able to not answer questions.
    Now there are excellent MPs in the house, but it looks a very optional extra. Is it worth paying them £83k a year to trot through the house like nodding dogs ?
    And the same is true of any parliament where there's a Gov't majority.

    An issue might be that a 'nodding dog' MP at votes might actually be a brilliant constituency MP, and good at looking after the interests of constituents; whilst a firebrand rebel might be an awful constituency MP.

    One thing we don't get is any metrics of how hard MPs work in, and for, their constituencies. And that's a major (the major?) part of the role.
    We need to define the job of MP a bit

    1) Is it full time or part time?
    2) What is career progression as an MP?
    3) What are the metrics of a good MP?
    4) What training do they require?
    5) What qualifications could they get to add to their skills?

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    edited November 10
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    It may well continue for a time but events will come along and the agenda will change

    However I expect the damage will be evident in the polling for a while and the two by elections will be a very good test

    What do you think success and failure look like for the upcoming by-elections, from the Conservatives point of view?

    I think preservation/increasing of the existing percentages will be a big success. Losing either will be a disaster. I think dropping below 50% in Old Bexley or 40% in North Shropshire will be a disappointment.
    As long as they hold both it will be a success, given the Conservatives have not held a seat in a by election since Sleaford and North Hykeham in 2016
    Is that an honest answer, really? If the Conservatives beat Labour 40-39 in Old Bexley, you'll regard that as a success?
    (I don't think it'll be anything near that, myself, but if that did happen I think it would be very worrying for the Conservatives)
    Midterm by elections are not General Elections.

    The fact that the Tories have won two General Elections since the last by election defence should tell you that.
    So you would say a 40-39 victory would be a success in OB&S?
    In a by election? Yes.

    In a General Election? Yes, so long as the rest of the results went ok.
    Well, now we're getting to the nub of my question, which is what conclusions we can draw from the result. If the Conservatives won my 40pp that's better news than if they won by 1pp. Yes, of course it makes no difference to the result of this constituency, but by-elections do offer (imperfect) signposts to the wider political fortunes of parties. Which is why I think everyone will agree that maintaining the current percentages would be an unambiguous success.

    At what point do we slip from "still good news" to "about expected" and then into "disappointing" and finally into "disaster"?
    Win by one vote: good news.
    Lose by one vote: bad news.

    Lose in a General Election rather than a by election: disaster. (Unless mitigated by other results)
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,594
    The big step forward in our 50 over cricket was continued aggression. Yet in this format we hold back on more destructive players to use as finishers like it's still 2005.
  • maaarsh said:

    The big step forward in our 50 over cricket was continued aggression. Yet in this format we hold back on more destructive players to use as finishers like it's still 2005.

    9 wickets but only 13 overs in hand.

    Be more aggressive FFS!

    Doesn't matter if you get caught if the next batsman can bat.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    Most jobs where there is a non-negligible risk of death associated with the role are paid significantly more than equivalent less dangerous ones. Two murders in 5 years across a cohort of what, about 1,000 people max? Plus serious injury to some others, death threats to many, and a daily diet of hate online. £80k seems pretty reasonable to me. I would pay more. As someone else mentioned, many more than 5% will be earning £80k+ at some point in their careers. My firms pays our senior managers - people generally in their late 20s or early 30s - about this amount, and they earn a similar salary plus more generous benefits in middle ranking roles in industry. Their jobs are a hell of a lot less pressured or dangerous than that of a member of parliament.

    On the other hand there is the prestige that comes with being an MP, and the excitement. But I don't necessarily think it's healthy to pack the commons with people who are there to feed their egos, or to indulge in political fanaticism.

    That's why I think the sleaze story has taken a (deliberately?) confusing turn by conflating real instances of corruption - paid lobbying in government, cash for peerages, Covid contracts for mates, you name it - with the vaguer and much less clear cut question of whether MPs should have second jobs.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 603

    39,676 cases in Germany yesterday. Another new record, with test positivity well over 10%.

    image

    My German colleague I spoke to yesterday expects the numbers to get much worse. There is no leadership there currently (the new Chancellor is not in place yet) and they are about to have a whole bunch of festivals with limited restrictions.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    edited November 10
    What is it with Paddy Power giving MPs free tickets to go to the footie btw ? Noted that particular freebie a few times..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017

    39,676 cases in Germany yesterday. Another new record, with test positivity well over 10%.

    image


    Dear God
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,634

    39,676 cases in Germany yesterday. Another new record, with test positivity well over 10%.

    image

    NYTimes critique incoming in 3... 2... 1...
This discussion has been closed.