Having read the thread I am not really any the wiser on Canadian politics. I am not even better informed. Have we finally found a subject about which we know nothing and care less? Remarkable and notable.
In my only provable example of fan fiction (an alt-hist exploration of Babylon 5 filmed in Vancouver), I had to read up on Western Canadian politics in the past. It was one of the few regions worldwide that implemented social credit, a movement not to be confused with the similarly-named Chinese system and now died out. The fanfic is here[1], the social credit explanation is here[2][3].
Having read the thread I am not really any the wiser on Canadian politics. I am not even better informed. Have we finally found a subject about which we know nothing and care less? Remarkable and notable.
Mrs PtP knew Christia Freeland at Harvard. She says she's nice.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Nige & co may have been a bit previous in getting rid of their ‘up to our knees in Fenian blood’ Scottish rep. He seemed to me a perfect fit for the type of Scottish voters they want to appeal to.
What do you two reckon on Moray and Banff etc.? Or do the fishing communities feel let down over Brexit?
The Conservatives would have won Banff & Buchan if Dross hadn’t sacrificed David Duguid for his own selfish reasons. I don’t think Reform could win either seat under FPTP. However, they should pick up a couple of list seats in the North East.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
You’re obviously cursed with principles and honesty. Many of them find a way to top up the cash and ignore the case work.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
That’s nonsense. Several years post Oxford as a chemist in a variety of roles, then a career change to law and five or six years at that before becoming an MP. Pretty decent I’d say. I also see she only published one scientific paper, incidentally in a Journal I have also published in (Journal of the Science of Agriculture and Food).
This started with Thatcher being offered as an example of someone having had a career before politics. I would contend (as I did above) that that doesn’t constitute a “career”. It’s the first chunk of starting one. I’m not diminishing her, just noting that she was always (at least after her post-grad stuff) focused on being an MP and highly political. Being a barrister was the fallback that allowed her to chase a seat and sharpen some debating skills. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend she brought much experience with her.
I do accept the basic premise that the modern PPE-SpAd-MP route is far worse though.
Strictly she didn't do a postgrad but the Oxford Chemistry undergrad degree, which required (might still do for all I know) a 4th year on a research project on top of the usual 3 years - so the choice was forced on her. But the result is the same in terms of the equivalent of a MSc by research.
Acyn @Acyn · 4h Trump: We won the popular vote by millions and millions of people. Nobody even knows how many people. Millions. And they're still counting in some areas. You know they're still counting the vote in some areas.. We got to fix the election so that we get honest counts…
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
The social work is the problem. When was it added to the original job description (scrutinising legislation, holding the government to account)? Therapy sessions (sorry, 'surgeries') for random people driven mad by the government can have tragic consequences. No-one should be expected to do that for £80k. Or, to be blunt, only a fool would be attracted by the prospect. Apologies to all those who have put themselves forward - I have nothing but admiration for your courage.
Acyn @Acyn · 4h Trump: We won the popular vote by millions and millions of people. Nobody even knows how many people. Millions. And they're still counting in some areas. You know they're still counting the vote in some areas.. We got to fix the election so that we get honest counts…
On the one hand, it is absolutely fucking insane that some states take so long to finalise the results... but they must be all done by now, surely?
They need to get the Sunderland lot over to get that boxed off. The Returning officer would have it verified in under an hour and be feet up having a brew. They're just slacking.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
Having read the thread I am not really any the wiser on Canadian politics. I am not even better informed. Have we finally found a subject about which we know nothing and care less? Remarkable and notable.
In my only provable example of fan fiction (an alt-hist exploration of Babylon 5 filmed in Vancouver), I had to read up on Western Canadian politics in the past. It was one of the few regions worldwide that implemented social credit, a movement not to be confused with the similarly-named Chinese system and now died out. The fanfic is here[1], the social credit explanation is here[2][3].
As your second reference makes clear it’s a bonkers idea, but also a fascinating one I had never heard of. Please don’t popularise it!
Politics worldwide and throughout history has many different ways of ordering society, with things like Soviet communism, syndicalism, tribalism, radicalism, solarpunk, all taking a basic element and tweaking it to produce wildly different results. What happens if children are brought up by the state? What happens if cousins marry? What happens if you remove the state? Remove the vote from women? Religious leaders override elected leaders? Individual vs family as the electoral unit?
We live in a world which is divided into a patchwork quilt of nation-states with many governed by a free secret ballot of individuals, but that's not universal nor eternal. Studying other situations helps to see this, and the ways it can go badly wrong with the best of intentions.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Nige & co may have been a bit previous in getting rid of their ‘up to our knees in Fenian blood’ Scottish rep. He seemed to me a perfect fit for the type of Scottish voters they want to appeal to.
What do you two reckon on Moray and Banff etc.? Or do the fishing communities feel let down over Brexit?
I guess if Reform were ever to get a Scottish mp it would be there, unlikely though. Some fisherfolk still seem to be able to persuade themselves that they’re well out of the eevul EU mind.
What's David Coburn up to these days?
Had a look at the National and Glasgow Herald search engines but found nothing much since his trying to join the ScoTories in 2019 and being turned down. This is as much as I found for recent reports, but ££ so no idea what it says.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat. 'Oy peasants and plebs do you realise the paycut I have taken to be your MP and how lucky you are to benefit from my vastly superior skills and intelligence to yours?' really won't cut it unless you also have some empathy for their problems and concerns.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Personally I think you square this circle by normalising ministerial (including the PM) appointments from outside of either House (or currently you could just do it by putting them in the Lords) and allowing them to speak from the despatch box and be scrutinised by MPs.
You pay ministers as ministers and free them from having to be an MP, though you don’t preclude it.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
The social work is the problem. When was it added to the original job description (scrutinising legislation, holding the government to account)? Therapy sessions (sorry, 'surgeries') for random people driven mad by the government can have tragic consequences. No-one should be expected to do that for £80k. Or, to be blunt, only a fool would be attracted by the prospect. Apologies to all those who have put themselves forward - I have nothing but admiration for your courage.
If we’re discussing increasing remuneration of MPs, in order to encourage a better quality of candidate, some of that funding could be allocated to their offices to provide much of this function - certainly for the less political aspects of such “therapy sessions”. A formal structure/code for the division of responsibilities would discourage the unscrupulous from taking the piss.
While we don’t want our representatives to be totally inaccessible, nor do we wish them to be so swamped with social work/ citizens’ advice that they continue to fail their national responsibilities.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Nige & co may have been a bit previous in getting rid of their ‘up to our knees in Fenian blood’ Scottish rep. He seemed to me a perfect fit for the type of Scottish voters they want to appeal to.
What a slacker - blood up to your knees? You can’t swim in that.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Personally I think you square this circle by normalising ministerial (including the PM) appointments from outside of either House (or currently you could just do it by putting them in the Lords) and allowing them to speak from the despatch box and be scrutinised by MPs.
You pay ministers as ministers and free them from having to be an MP, though you don’t preclude it.
Indeed. There is some case for that so more Cabinet Ministers as in the US or France don't have to be elected members of parliament but can be appointed by the elected PM from top jobs elsewhere in business, law or academia on significantly higher salaries than MPs are on.
MPs pay is about right in my view, Cabinet Ministers pay needs to be a bit higher though and should allow those who don't want to have to campaign for votes first to do the job too. The PM still has to be elected as an MP though as head of government and directly accountable to Parliament and the voters
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Indeed. But I've known quite a few radical SSP campaigners who then switched to UKIP too. If Reform could find a half-decent figurehead in Scotland they'd be onto a (almost) winner. Jim Sillars? Someone along those lines I guess. Maybe even a penitent (Scottish) Tommy at a stretch.
Jim S too much of a Home Ruler or pro-Indy, I think. And still a SNP member AFAIK.
Half the BBC main news tonight is essentially about what a fucking disaster social media's invention without any control has been.
They do have skin in that particular game tho’; the youth have categorically walked away from the beeb towards social and video media, they don’t appear to be coming back, and there’s a very good chance that this will either end or massively diminish the BBC….
On topic: I wondered if Carney was shorter odds with Ladbrokes because of UK name recognition (akin to betting on England for a tournament win with a UK bookie) but, no, US Sportsbooks on a quick glance seem to quote fairly comparable odds.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Personally I think you square this circle by normalising ministerial (including the PM) appointments from outside of either House (or currently you could just do it by putting them in the Lords) and allowing them to speak from the despatch box and be scrutinised by MPs.
You pay ministers as ministers and free them from having to be an MP, though you don’t preclude it.
Indeed. There is some case for that so more Cabinet Ministers as in the US or France don't have to be elected members of parliament but can be appointed by the elected PM from top jobs elsewhere in business, law or academia on significantly higher salaries than MPs are on.
MPs pay is about right in my view, Cabinet Ministers pay needs to be a bit higher though and should allow those who don't want to have to campaign for votes first to do the job too. The PM still has to be elected as an MP though as head of government and directly accountable to Parliament and the voters
I can actually see an argument to directly elect the PM, given the executive powers they have ended up with. But obviously you would then be ripping up the whole system and would need to think rather carefully.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Personally I think you square this circle by normalising ministerial (including the PM) appointments from outside of either House (or currently you could just do it by putting them in the Lords) and allowing them to speak from the despatch box and be scrutinised by MPs.
You pay ministers as ministers and free them from having to be an MP, though you don’t preclude it.
Indeed. There is some case for that so more Cabinet Ministers as in the US or France don't have to be elected members of parliament but can be appointed by the elected PM from top jobs elsewhere in business, law or academia on significantly higher salaries than MPs are on.
MPs pay is about right in my view, Cabinet Ministers pay needs to be a bit higher though and should allow those who don't want to have to campaign for votes first to do the job too. The PM still has to be elected as an MP though as head of government and directly accountable to Parliament and the voters
I can actually see an argument to directly elect the PM, given the executive powers they have ended up with. But obviously you would then be ripping up the whole system and would need to think rather carefully.
Indeed, Israel did try that once with a direct election for PM between Sharon and Barak but did not repeat it
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
Or perhaps he wouldn't.. The US is looking much less of an ally.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
They had never dared grasp the sword … and now they could not grasp it. They might have taken... (power)... when they realized the error of specializing ..... They could have done this, lived their glorious day and died. Instead, they'd existed from moment to moment, hoping the seas in which they swam might produce a new host when the old one died.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
And what makes you think your analysts and engineers on £120-£150k a year would be able to connect with their constituents on £25-£30k a year average salaries enough to get them to vote for them? Unless they suck up to party HQ enough to get an ultra safe seat. 'Oy peasants and plebs do you realise the paycut I have taken to be your MP and how lucky you are to benefit from my vastly superior skills and intelligence to yours?' really won't cut it unless you also have some empathy for their problems and concerns.
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
Well I don't think that's the case yet you can't pretend to me that the HoC is brimming with talented people with the capability to run the country. Doing the tedious social work puts people off who would probably do a relatively good job in the Cabinet and holding the executive to account both in opposition and as part of the governing party from the back benches. I also don't think being a therapist for people 20 minutes for a one off session actually helps to connect to ordinary people, you just hear them moan for a bit about some trivial planning issue or the bins not getting collected every week and on the odd occasion one of them has a real problem all you can do is ask someone else more qualified to handle it.
As you've said after this comment, cabinet ministers external to parliament is a good way of getting more qualified people in but it would break the democratic link between the people and who goes in the cabinet which I'd be against. No, the answer to me is to stop doing surgeries or have a triage system where common staff for multiple MPs screen people out and only take the most urgent or workable cases forwards to the MP to raise in the house. Cases which threaten the fabric of the nation or go beyond the usual mundanities of life.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
My father-in-law - a sincere and interesting man, if a little singular - once asked me whether I was a United-States-of-Europer or a 51st-stater. He - despite being a self-declared socialist - was very much the latter. He'd worked with both Europeans and Americans, and had worked IN both Europe and America, and very much preferred the latter. But it was out of genuine enthusiasm - I think a lot of USE-ers do so out of horror of the USA, and 51st-staters out of despair of Europe.
Personally I'd prefer we did neither. Both options seem appalling to me. In the hypothetical world where the UK is deemed to small to be acceptable, I'd prefer to team up with Canada, Australia and New Zealand but I can see massive drawbacks of doing so and wouldn't particularly want to. I'd rather Starmer than Trudeau or Adern. Other countries politics are even more horrible than our own.
But despite my enthusiasm for speaking English, my belief that the decline of continental Europe is far more likely than not, my nervousness about what's on Europe's eastern and southern border, the rise of European politicians cosying up to Russia, despite the French, despite my general fondness for America - if it came to a choice between the two I'd probably opt for being in a European superstate over a North Atlantic one.
On topic, Carney's big problem is he isn't an MP, which means either:
- They have to go straight to an election - Trudeau has to stay until the election - Someone has to stand down in a by-election for Carney (could backfire if not a very safe seat)
On topic, Carney's big problem is he isn't an MP, which means either:
- They have to go straight to an election - Trudeau has to stay until the election - Someone has to stand down in a by-election for Carney (could backfire if not a very safe seat)
So I'd lay him all day long
Prime Ministers can be external to parliament in Canada.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
No he hasn't. There's four years yet.
He's a long way behind but he hasn't lost it yet.
With Trump 2.0 the world could look very very different in four years.
On topic, Carney's big problem is he isn't an MP, which means either:
- They have to go straight to an election - Trudeau has to stay until the election - Someone has to stand down in a by-election for Carney (could backfire if not a very safe seat)
So I'd lay him all day long
Prime Ministers can be external to parliament in Canada.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
No he hasn't. There's four years yet.
He's a long way behind but he hasn't lost it yet.
With Trump 2.0 the world could look very very different in four years.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Indeed. But I've known quite a few radical SSP campaigners who then switched to UKIP too. If Reform could find a half-decent figurehead in Scotland they'd be onto a (almost) winner. Jim Sillars? Someone along those lines I guess. Maybe even a penitent (Scottish) Tommy at a stretch.
Jim S too much of a Home Ruler or pro-Indy, I think. And still a SNP member AFAIK.
Yeah - I'm thinking of him as an Alan Johnson figure - in distant memory at least. Struggling to think of someone who could fill that "reform-ish" slot in Scottish politics now. No chance of Salmond (though now I type that - I think of his Russia Today show). Joanna Cherry? Not exactly someone I'd have a pint with.
So.... T.Sheridan brought back into the fold? In this timeline - I could juuuust about see it.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Indeed. But I've known quite a few radical SSP campaigners who then switched to UKIP too. If Reform could find a half-decent figurehead in Scotland they'd be onto a (almost) winner. Jim Sillars? Someone along those lines I guess. Maybe even a penitent (Scottish) Tommy at a stretch.
Jim S too much of a Home Ruler or pro-Indy, I think. And still a SNP member AFAIK.
Yeah - I'm thinking of him as an Alan Johnson figure - in distant memory at least. Struggling to think of someone who could fill that "reform-ish" slot in Scottish politics now. No chance of Salmond (though now I type that - I think of his Russia Today show). Joanna Cherry? Not exactly someone I'd have a pint with.
So.... T.Sheridan brought back into the fold? In this timeline - I could juuuust about see it.
Also Jim is very old, he's a widower, he's not looking to get back into the fight at his age. Let the man retire.
The Daily Mail.is full of thousands of comments about "standing with Denmark" tonight.
How idiotically geostragically out of steo with the times, the Tories' Brexit policy has turned out to be. They could even see Trump coming during the Referendum campaign.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Indeed. But I've known quite a few radical SSP campaigners who then switched to UKIP too. If Reform could find a half-decent figurehead in Scotland they'd be onto a (almost) winner. Jim Sillars? Someone along those lines I guess. Maybe even a penitent (Scottish) Tommy at a stretch.
Jim S too much of a Home Ruler or pro-Indy, I think. And still a SNP member AFAIK.
Yeah - I'm thinking of him as an Alan Johnson figure - in distant memory at least. Struggling to think of someone who could fill that "reform-ish" slot in Scottish politics now. No chance of Salmond (though now I type that - I think of his Russia Today show). Joanna Cherry? Not exactly someone I'd have a pint with.
So.... T.Sheridan brought back into the fold? In this timeline - I could juuuust about see it.
Also Jim is very old, he's a widower, he's not looking to get back into the fight at his age. Let the man retire.
I wasn't at all meaning to suggest him as The One. But someone in that ilk. Someone you could be having a pint with in the pub. Maybe agree or disagree with - but hat's off - solid bloke. That kind of thing. "Might as well vote for his lot, the rest are all the same."
Just can't think of anyone in current #scotpol who fits that square peg. I guess that's why a 'reformed; Tommy.S' comes to mind. Hero out of the wilderness - defamed by the politically correct mob - blah. You can fill in the narrative holes, I'm sure.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
I wouldn’t dismiss it at all. But there is also a genuine conflict between constituency work and their work as legislators, simply because of the volume of such work, and their limited resources.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, I just think the balance is askew, not least because a lot of the things MPs get contacted about are actually nothing to do with their role as MP (it is often more likely to be for the local council/councillor). And because they are not rewarded for being good at legislative work then if they do not have a parliamentary job it is easy to get sucked into meaningless grandstanding like opposing some local planning matter, which only a handful of people may even care about but because they are noisy and the MP has literally zero influence on it they stick their oar in.
It would be good if backbenchers had more influence and committees more significance, and some effort has happened from time to time, but you don't advance within a party if you excel at those legislative skills, so there's not really incentive to develop them.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
I wouldn’t dismiss it at all. But there is also a genuine conflict between constituency work and their work as legislators, simply because of the volume of such work, and their limited resources.
Don't they have expenses for staff for just this?
Frankly, most of the time MPs vote the way the whips tell them to without any reading let alone scrutiny of a Bill's terms. Committee work is valuable. But how many MPs are involved in that?
How do you learn how to ask questions, probe, understand the consequences of legislation etc., raise issues, campaign for matters affecting your constituents and so on? One important way is by having some knowledge of the issues your constituents are facing and what is bothering them.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
I must be weird but it's the part of the job that appeals to me most too, particularly if I were to represent a rural constituency similar to which I grew up in. All the stuff in Westminster/Whitehall appears to be a childish charade. Perhaps junior minister would be interesting - actually talking to the civil servants etc.
(Full disclosure - it would be a decent payrise for me but absolutely not worth it given the travel, job insecurity, risk of online/physical abuse.)
That's very interesting, albeit a subsample with a large MoE.
Always thought Reform was the sort of party that would fall flat in Scotland - too "English".
The anti-establishment vote has always - to my casual looking - been quite fragmented in Scotland. You might go Alba, you might go SSP, maybe UKIP, or you might go fruitloop-local...
If that solidified around Reform - I could see them doing fairly well.
Scottish working class unionists of the traditional Glasgow Rangers supporting variety would be a happy hunting ground for Reform. I would expect them to perform well in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Lothian and certain parts of Ayrshire.
Indeed. But I've known quite a few radical SSP campaigners who then switched to UKIP too. If Reform could find a half-decent figurehead in Scotland they'd be onto a (almost) winner. Jim Sillars? Someone along those lines I guess. Maybe even a penitent (Scottish) Tommy at a stretch.
Jim S too much of a Home Ruler or pro-Indy, I think. And still a SNP member AFAIK.
Yeah - I'm thinking of him as an Alan Johnson figure - in distant memory at least. Struggling to think of someone who could fill that "reform-ish" slot in Scottish politics now. No chance of Salmond (though now I type that - I think of his Russia Today show). Joanna Cherry? Not exactly someone I'd have a pint with.
So.... T.Sheridan brought back into the fold? In this timeline - I could juuuust about see it.
Also Jim is very old, he's a widower, he's not looking to get back into the fight at his age. Let the man retire.
I wasn't at all meaning to suggest him as The One. But someone in that ilk. Someone you could be having a pint with in the pub. Maybe agree or disagree with - but hat's off - solid bloke. That kind of thing. "Might as well vote for his lot, the rest are all the same."
Just can't think of anyone in current #scotpol who fits that square peg. I guess that's why a 'reformed; Tommy.S' comes to mind. Hero out of the wilderness - defamed by the politically correct mob - blah. You can fill in the narrative holes, I'm sure.
Absolutely true - the Blairisation of the SNP and SLab led to a decline in the quality of politicians generally, the big hitters just aren't there anymore.
I think Tommy S cooked his own goose a long time ago with his personal behaviour, and his name means nothing to younger voters.
It's very difficult to come up with a name of anyone remotely credible who could fill that kind of role in Scotland.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
I think someone gave Trump a Big Boys Atlas and he looked at the size of things.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
They had never dared grasp the sword … and now they could not grasp it. They might have taken... (power)... when they realized the error of specializing ..... They could have done this, lived their glorious day and died. Instead, they'd existed from moment to moment, hoping the seas in which they swam might produce a new host when the old one died.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
There's no way Trump watches anything with subtitles.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
I think someone gave Trump a Big Boys Atlas and he looked at the size of things.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
I wouldn’t dismiss it at all. But there is also a genuine conflict between constituency work and their work as legislators, simply because of the volume of such work, and their limited resources.
Don't they have expenses for staff for just this?
Frankly, most of the time MPs vote the way the whips tell them to without any reading let alone scrutiny of a Bill's terms. Committee work is valuable. But how many MPs are involved in that?
How do you learn how to ask questions, probe, understand the consequences of legislation etc., raise issues, campaign for matters affecting your constituents and so on? One important way is by having some knowledge of the issues your constituents are facing and what is bothering them.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
We have several problems and in four cases the solution is the same. The four problems are:
Turchin's elite overproduction MP's workload MP's wages Distance between voter and MP
The solution is to radically increase the number of MPs. I want 3,000, but would settle for 900. This would reduce each individuals workload for the same salary, soak up the frustrated counter-elites, allow greater contact between voter and MP, and increase the talent pool for select committees.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
We have several problems and in four cases the solution is the same. The four problems are:
Turchin's elite overproduction MP's workload MP's wages Distance between voter and MP
The solution is to radically increase the number of MPs. I want 3,000, but would settle for 900. This would reduce each individuals workload for the same salary, soak up the frustrated counter-elites, allow greater contact between voter and MP, and increase the talent pool for select committees.
It would be useful to have some general point of contact. I wrote to a London MP about something I saw in their constituency, and the response was that, by convention, they cannot engage with me if I don't live in the constituency.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
You really have gone off the deep end in recent years
It's been genuinely enlightening to me on PB that some people seem to feel fundamentally American.
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
He's aleady lost the red wall and the next election.
They had never dared grasp the sword … and now they could not grasp it. They might have taken... (power)... when they realized the error of specializing ..... They could have done this, lived their glorious day and died. Instead, they'd existed from moment to moment, hoping the seas in which they swam might produce a new host when the old one died.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
It was always the case, and should be the case, that being an MP is a pay cut compared to some industries. Why should it not be?
The problem is that for decades now MPs pay has been going up faster than most other salaries, so now instead of being a vocation by those who are interested in doing the right thing for the country (many of whom either have had or still have a career in other sectors already) its become a career in its own right for out of touch career politicos - and as a career it is well remunerated earning well over what 95% of the country earns, even if its not top 1% figures.
It doesn't matter how high you ratchet the salaries, they'll never match the top private ones, nor should it. But it could and should be cut back closer towards what other people earn rather than merely the top less than 5% earn, as it was in the 70s and 80s that you originally mentioned, and let an MPs salary go up or down with their median constituents salaries, not the elite out of touch ones.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
It was always the case, and should be the case, that being an MP is a pay cut compared to some industries. Why should it not be?
The problem is that for decades now MPs pay has been going up faster than most other salaries, so now instead of being a vocation by those who are interested in doing the right thing for the country (many of whom either have had or still have a career in other sectors already) its become a career in its own right for out of touch career politicos - and as a career it is well remunerated earning well over what 95% of the country earns, even if its not top 1% figures.
It doesn't matter how high you ratchet the salaries, they'll never match the top private ones, nor should it. But it could and should be cut back closer towards what other people earn rather than merely the top less than 5% earn, as it was in the 70s and 80s that you originally mentioned, and let an MPs salary go up or down with their median constituents salaries, not the elite out of touch ones.
I don’t think it’s crazy. MPs are on what? £90k, plus generous expenses beyond what most of us could claim, and with a crazy good pension that makes other public sector schemes look tiny? Let’s assume it’s therefore “worth” £150k. I am happy to see them have that IF they have no second jobs, they get sacked at the slightest hint of financial impropriety, and they don’t whinge if they get made redundant after five years and can’t get a job because of things they said or did. Indeed, based on the latter I could accept it being higher.
I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
Comments
Yet another day when the latter's comms skills have totally out classed the PM.
Men: Con 20, Ref 29
Women: Con 27, Ref 15
That’s the risk appetite gender gap right there.
Contrast with Labour (M30, F30) and Lib Dem (M11, F12).
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
Good to know.
We live in a world which is divided into a patchwork quilt of nation-states with many governed by a free secret ballot of individuals, but that's not universal nor eternal. Studying other situations helps to see this, and the ways it can go badly wrong with the best of intentions.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/24685255.us-presidential-election-mugs-game/
The fact is you live in a world less than 5% of the UK do and as you say you see the job of being an MP as largely social work for constituents with a bit of legislative scrutiny and parliamentary votes tacked on and would see it as beneath you even if the salary was raised to £100k+ unless you got fast tracked to a senior Cabinet position. Assuming the party you support managed to get elected into power first of course
You pay ministers as ministers and free them from having to be an MP, though you don’t preclude it.
A formal structure/code for the division of responsibilities would discourage the unscrupulous from taking the piss.
While we don’t want our representatives to be totally inaccessible, nor do we wish them to be so swamped with social work/ citizens’ advice that they continue to fail their national responsibilities.
Then of course there's some by-elections looming...
The first new 🇩🇪German KF41 Lynx infantry fighting vehicle has already been delivered to 🇺🇦Ukraine — Rheinmetall
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1876672162586566753
Looks a lot more comfortable than Ajax.
Perfect target.
Who said Ajax was useless?
MPs pay is about right in my view, Cabinet Ministers pay needs to be a bit higher though and should allow those who don't want to have to campaign for votes first to do the job too. The PM still has to be elected as an MP though as head of government and directly accountable to Parliament and the voters
If Davey has any sense he will block any application for a by-election in next few years.
https://x.com/lucauffret/status/1876712387186717117
Jack Surfleet
@jacksurfleet
·
36m
Wednesday's i: Social media giants defy UK crackdown on online safety
#TomorrowsPapersToday
At the same time, if Starmer had the balls to call a referendum now, we would be back in Europe. He'd probably lose the red wall and the next election, though.
The US is looking much less of an ally.
or
Αἴας ὁ Λοκριανός
??
Incredible interview on Newsnight.
They had never dared grasp the sword … and now they could not grasp it. They might have taken... (power)... when they realized the error of specializing ..... They could have done this, lived their glorious day and died. Instead, they'd existed from moment to moment, hoping the seas in which they swam might produce a new host when the old one died.
As you've said after this comment, cabinet ministers external to parliament is a good way of getting more qualified people in but it would break the democratic link between the people and who goes in the cabinet which I'd be against. No, the answer to me is to stop doing surgeries or have a triage system where common staff for multiple MPs screen people out and only take the most urgent or workable cases forwards to the MP to raise in the house. Cases which threaten the fabric of the nation or go beyond the usual mundanities of life.
Personally I'd prefer we did neither. Both options seem appalling to me. In the hypothetical world where the UK is deemed to small to be acceptable, I'd prefer to team up with Canada, Australia and New Zealand but I can see massive drawbacks of doing so and wouldn't particularly want to. I'd rather Starmer than Trudeau or Adern. Other countries politics are even more horrible than our own.
But despite my enthusiasm for speaking English, my belief that the decline of continental Europe is far more likely than not, my nervousness about what's on Europe's eastern and southern border, the rise of European politicians cosying up to Russia, despite the French, despite my general fondness for America - if it came to a choice between the two I'd probably opt for being in a European superstate over a North Atlantic one.
- They have to go straight to an election
- Trudeau has to stay until the election
- Someone has to stand down in a by-election for Carney (could backfire if not a very safe seat)
So I'd lay him all day long
He's a long way behind but he hasn't lost it yet.
With Trump 2.0 the world could look very very different in four years.
I think he would have taken him down with humour and yet made his point.
So.... T.Sheridan brought back into the fold? In this timeline - I could juuuust about see it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/07/elon-musk-knows-absolutely-nothing-about-womens-safety-says-jess-phillips
As discussion on this topic is currently (and for clear reason) in abeyance, I can’t offer my opinion.
Now that I type that - Musk's erratic posts are reminding me of Al-Fayed's pronouncements in that era.
Are we allowed to discuss Elon Musk’s imminent purchase of Liverpool FC - or am I banned now for smirking at the football deal of the century 🤭
How idiotically geostragically out of steo with the times, the Tories' Brexit policy has turned out to be. They could even see Trump coming during the Referendum campaign.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
Just can't think of anyone in current #scotpol who fits that square peg. I guess that's why a 'reformed; Tommy.S' comes to mind. Hero out of the wilderness - defamed by the politically correct mob - blah. You can fill in the narrative holes, I'm sure.
Sadly, no evidence of hyperbole yet. Very good.
Buggers only allow two hours though - isn't three more normal?
But there is also a genuine conflict between constituency work and their work as legislators, simply because of the volume of such work, and their limited resources.
It would be good if backbenchers had more influence and committees more significance, and some effort has happened from time to time, but you don't advance within a party if you excel at those legislative skills, so there's not really incentive to develop them.
Clinton explains how Youth today are uneducated about the Middle East and have no idea Palestinians have repeatedly rejected having their own state.
https://x.com/koshercockney/status/1876715483199660094
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
Frankly, most of the time MPs vote the way the whips tell them to without any reading let alone scrutiny of a Bill's terms. Committee work is valuable. But how many MPs are involved in that?
How do you learn how to ask questions, probe, understand the consequences of legislation etc., raise issues, campaign for matters affecting your constituents and so on? One important way is by having some knowledge of the issues your constituents are facing and what is bothering them.
(Full disclosure - it would be a decent payrise for me but absolutely not worth it given the travel, job insecurity, risk of online/physical abuse.)
I think Tommy S cooked his own goose a long time ago with his personal behaviour, and his name means nothing to younger voters.
It's very difficult to come up with a name of anyone remotely credible who could fill that kind of role in Scotland.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/nc7h1cs4q6ic/2Y68YYPNxwBYm8TY4lhkTS/651008b71fc8e2549164147a0b97c7b5/Spending_report_2024.pdf
Turchin's elite overproduction
MP's workload
MP's wages
Distance between voter and MP
The solution is to radically increase the number of MPs. I want 3,000, but would settle for 900. This would reduce each individuals workload for the same salary, soak up the frustrated counter-elites, allow greater contact between voter and MP, and increase the talent pool for select committees.
The problem is that for decades now MPs pay has been going up faster than most other salaries, so now instead of being a vocation by those who are interested in doing the right thing for the country (many of whom either have had or still have a career in other sectors already) its become a career in its own right for out of touch career politicos - and as a career it is well remunerated earning well over what 95% of the country earns, even if its not top 1% figures.
It doesn't matter how high you ratchet the salaries, they'll never match the top private ones, nor should it. But it could and should be cut back closer towards what other people earn rather than merely the top less than 5% earn, as it was in the 70s and 80s that you originally mentioned, and let an MPs salary go up or down with their median constituents salaries, not the elite out of touch ones.