A key point on looking into the future is this: it is now clear that most of the Corbyn support inside the Labour party is derived from keyboard members who never go near a CLP meeting. If you look at votes on appointments in which being present at a meeting is required - ie, all those outside the leader, deputy leader and CLP NEC members contests - then moderates win 80% to 90% of the time. What this means is that MPs and candidates will continue to be mostly chosen by moderate members and that CLP delegations to conference are likely to be dominated by moderates. That, in turn, means that the PLP is likely to continue to be to the right of the keyboard membership and that it is unlikely any rule changes lowering the threshold for leadership nominations will be passed. If that is right, then the prospects of another far left candidate making it through to a leadership contest are low, at best.
We will find out about the change to the leadership nomination rules at conference this autumn. If I turn out to be wrong, we can expect a leadership contest in 2018, as a far left candidate will only need 5% of nominations in order to get through to the ballot and Corbyn will be able to step down. The issue then is whether the left will nominate just one candidate, or whether several will step forward. Either way, I think that it will be much harder to create a path to victory - especially now that Momentumi is tearing itself to pieces and so many on the left have now realised that Corbyn always was anti-EU, did not want Remain to win last June and did all he could to sabotage its efforts.
But if I am right Corbyn and the hard left then have a big question to ask themselves: does Jeremy stay in place and lead Labour to catastrophic defeat at the next GE, so destroying the far left inside Labour forever, or does he step down and let the moderate left or even the centre take the can for a defeat? I think there is a good case for believing that the far left may well seek to shift as much blame as possible to its Labour rivals for a 2020 defeat, as that may allow for a comeback in the following decade. Either way, I believe that a leadership election will take place next year.
Of course, we could still get a contest this year. All that it would take is for Len McCluskey (or Gerard Coyne, if there is a miracle) to call for one. That would then give challengers to Corbyn licence to gather nominations without accusation of disloyalty. My sense is that we are well past peak-Corbyn and that if there were a union sanctioned challenge this year he would lose. When he does go, he will take a lot of the keyboard members with him.
Finally, a prediction: buy Nandy; but don't spend too much ;-)
6% of its leadership? Sounds like a double edged sword. If the leadership is not that large you can reach the percentage with only a few appointments, but on the other hand if you need to make efficiencies and cut the level of management and some are LGBT, your percentage could drop massively from only a few changes.
I'd have thought 6% would represent a reduction.
Leadership target not total staff I presume, may have been 0 at the top until relatively recently maybe.
A key point on looking into the future is this: it is now clear that most of the Corbyn support inside the Labour party is derived from keyboard members who never go near a CLP meeting. If you look at votes on appointments in which being present at a meeting is required - ie, all those outside the leader, deputy leader and CLP NEC members contests - then moderates win 80% to 90% of the time. What this means is that MPs and candidates will continue to be mostly chosen by moderate members and that CLP delegations to conference are likely to be dominated by moderates. That, in turn, means that the PLP is likely to continue to be to the right of the keyboard membership and that it is unlikely any rule changes lowering the threshold for leadership nominations will be passed. If that is right, then the prospects of another far left candidate making it through to a leadership contest are low, at best.
But if I am right Corbyn and the hard left then have a big question to ask themselves: does Jeremy stay in place and lead Labour to catastrophic defeat at the next GE, so destroying the far left inside Labour forever, or does he step down and let the moderate left or even the centre take the can for a defeat? I think there is a good case for believing that the far left may well seek to shift as much blame as possible to its Labour rivals for a 2020 defeat, as that may allow for a comeback in the following decade. Either way, I believe that a leadership election will take place next year.
Of course, we could still get a contest this year. All that it would take is for Len McCluskey (or Gerard Coyne, if there is a miracle) to call for one. That would then give challengers to Corbyn licence to gather nominations without accusation of disloyalty. My sense is that we are well past peak-Corbyn and that if there were a union sanctioned challenge this year he would lose. When he does go, he will take a lot of the keyboard members with him.
Finally, a prediction: buy Nandy; but don't spend too much ;-)
The main question from all that analysis, is what will be left of Labour after all this. Regardless of 'who' leads them, they're not looking even close to a party of government for a long time.
6% of its leadership? Sounds like a double edged sword. If the leadership is not that large you can reach the percentage with only a few appointments, but on the other hand if you need to make efficiencies and cut the level of management and some are LGBT, your percentage could drop massively from only a few changes.
I'd have thought 6% would represent a reduction.
Leadership target not total staff I presume, may have been 0 at the top until relatively recently maybe.
Shouldn't come as much of a surprise, most of the people in the top tier joined the civil service 30+ years ago, and so will be representative of the demographics of high flyer intake at that time, so largely white, male, public school, oxbridge. Over the next decade that will become dramatically less the case just from the demographics of the intake without any positive discrimination.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
I'd replace expenses completely with allowances, and if the member for Dunny-on-the-Wold wants to spend his travel allowance on turnips, then so be it. MPs also need to spend more on their staff -- the current IPSA scales are too low, as Diane Abbott's recent advert reminded us. To get high quality staff means paying more or relying on trustifarian SpAds or spartan ideologues -- but to prevent corruption, MPs should not do their own recruiting.
But of course the executive has a vested interest in backbenchers being underpaid and under-resourced.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
The bizarre thing is that even if the front men don't seem to have a clue, there are plenty of well staffed think tanks sitting behind them that should have all sorts of believable sounding answers to these questions.
This rather suggests that the current leadership options can't stomach the sort of answers the think tanks are coming up with, even though they are more likely to appeal to voters - probably because the only answer that fits is going to be some variant of Blairism.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
Happily or sadly that is the truth that the Cons can't refute. For a "typical" eg. northern constituency, those numbers are stratospheric and other-worldly. For a Lab candidate in, say, worksop, the current MP's salary is pretty good compared with probably many of their peers.
For southern gaylord ponceyboots Cons, however, £75k is expected to come a year or two after starting work at the top four, or a bulge bracket bank or broker, or...or...
So Cons have to suck it up, take a pay cut to be involved in politics, or have money already (eg Richard Benyon although yes he is an extreme).
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
Happily or sadly that is the truth that the Cons can't refute. For a "typical" eg. northern constituency, those numbers are stratospheric and other-worldly. For a Lab candidate in, say, worksop, the current MP's salary is pretty good compared with probably many of their peers.
For southern gaylord ponceyboots Cons, however, £75k is expected to come a year or two after starting work at the top four, or a bulge bracket bank or broker, or...or...
So Cons have to suck it up, take a pay cut to be involved in politics, or have money already (eg Richard Benyon although yes he is an extreme).
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
Give that "stratospheric and other-worldly" salary for Northern Labour MPs, how do they continue to select, with one or two exceptions, such a bunch of donkeys? At least following your diagnosis, the Tories have an excuse
Mr. Indigo, sounds like (if you're right) a religious type approach. Knowing the answer, then looking for supporting evidence, rather than the other way around.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
They have an answer to the second - they aren't Tories.
Force Awakens. It's not as good as Rogue One in terms of story but is easier to leap right into with the previous movies working as backstory even if not seen, to a child it won't look dated like a New Hope (which they'll appreciate in time) and has better acting in it, and is simpler with less stodgy stuff than the Phantom Menace (and even as a child I disliked precocious child characters so Anakin may put them off).
International Spectator IRAN: Hundreds of thousands take to streets demonstrating against US and shouting 'Death to America!' on anniversary of Islamic Revolution
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
Happily or sadly that is the truth that the Cons can't refute. For a "typical" eg. northern constituency, those numbers are stratospheric and other-worldly. For a Lab candidate in, say, worksop, the current MP's salary is pretty good compared with probably many of their peers.
For southern gaylord ponceyboots Cons, however, £75k is expected to come a year or two after starting work at the top four, or a bulge bracket bank or broker, or...or...
So Cons have to suck it up, take a pay cut to be involved in politics, or have money already (eg Richard Benyon although yes he is an extreme).
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
Give that "stratospheric and other-worldly" salary for Northern Labour MPs, how do they continue to select, with one or two exceptions, such a bunch of donkeys? At least following your diagnosis, the Tories have an excuse
It still takes an awful lot of perseverance, sacrifice and dedication to become an MP. Many people of all flavours and persuasions, simply don't have that in them.
Same as becoming a hedge fund principal, or Uber founder, for that matter.
Incidentally, and utterly OT, a philosophical Star Wars question:
Has to be New Hope
You can't deprive them of seeing the Star destroyer filling the screen at the start, or Darth Vader emerging from the smoke into the corridor. Rogue One would spoil both of those I think
Also some of the acting looks a little clunky next to the more recent outings, but you won't notice that first time around
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
The second question if easy: you should vote Labour is you do not want a Tory government. That may also be the answer to the first question. But that is only a credible message if the leader is credible. As we know, oppositions very rarely win elections; governments lose them.
A key point on looking into the future is this: it is now clear that most of the Corbyn support inside the Labour party is derived from keyboard members who never go near a CLP meeting. If you look at votes on appointments in which being present at a meeting is required - ie, all those outside the leader, deputy leader and CLP NEC members contests - then moderates win 80% to 90% of the time. What this means is that MPs and candidates will continue to be mostly chosen by moderate members and that CLP delegations to conference are likely to be dominated by moderates. That, in turn, means that the PLP is likely to continue to be to the right of the keyboard membership and that it is unlikely any rule changes lowering the threshold for leadership nominations will be passed. If that is right, then the prospects of another far left candidate making it through to a leadership contest are low, at best.
But if I am right Corbyn and the hard left then have a big question to ask themselves: does Jeremy stay in place and lead Labour to catastrophic defeat at the next GE, so destroying the far left inside Labour forever, or does he step down and let the moderate left or even the centre take the can for a defeat? I think there is a good case for believing that the far left may well seek to shift as much blame as possible to its Labour rivals for a 2020 defeat, as that may allow for a comeback in the following decade. Either way, I believe that a leadership election will take place next year.
Of course, we could still get a contest this year. All that it would take is for Len McCluskey (or Gerard Coyne, if there is a miracle) to call for one. That would then give challengers to Corbyn licence to gather nominations without accusation of disloyalty. My sense is that we are well past peak-Corbyn and that if there were a union sanctioned challenge this year he would lose. When he does go, he will take a lot of the keyboard members with him.
Finally, a prediction: buy Nandy; but don't spend too much ;-)
The main question from all that analysis, is what will be left of Labour after all this. Regardless of 'who' leads them, they're not looking even close to a party of government for a long time.
I agree. Labour's first task - a doable one with a credible leader - is to prevent a Tory overall majority in 2020.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
They have an answer to the second - they aren't Tories.
While I do get this, do you not think the current cul-de-sac is because they assumed this would always be the case?
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
The second question if easy: you should vote Labour is you do not want a Tory government. That may also be the answer to the first question. But that is only a credible message if the leader is credible. As we know, oppositions very rarely win elections; governments lose them.
Its not going to have floating voters vaulting off their sofas to go and vote though. Voters of the left will buy it for sure, but they will probably go out and vote anyway. When governments lose them its mostly because their supporters lose interest and sit on their hands on polling day, getting those people to vote Labour in stead probably involves a certainly amount of hope-y change-y presentation.
The salary once you become an MP isn't a problem (Well I might be talking from the perspective of someone who a couple of miles from the afore mentioned Worksop).
It is more the fact you need to dump your previous career, and then you might not be in the job for all that long particularly if you're in a marginal. Perhaps give each party a set pot of cash, a certain amount of money per seat won. Then allow the party to distribute that cash amongst all the seats, how they see fit. The marginals should pay better due to the lower job security.
Mr. Eagles, that's not revealed in Rogue One, though, is it?
Mr. Pulpstar, would risk making them think Jar Jar Binks is going to be a persistent character...
Mr. P, probably right. I do think Rogue One ties very nicely into A New Hope, though.
Mr. kle4, yeah, child actors tend to be irksome (there are exceptions, such as the kids in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Game of Thrones).
Godfrey Elfwick does it again - he's having enormous fun with answers to some Yahoo questions
Hmmm, on the one hand I'm a feminist... but on the other hand I don't want to disagree with this because it would be Islamophobic. Tricky https://t.co/Dt3PyIJxuT
Mr. Eagles, that's not revealed in Rogue One, though, is it?
Mr. Pulpstar, would risk making them think Jar Jar Binks is going to be a persistent character...
Mr. P, probably right. I do think Rogue One ties very nicely into A New Hope, though.
Mr. kle4, yeah, child actors tend to be irksome (there are exceptions, such as the kids in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Game of Thrones).
I was disappointed when they killed off the Lord Jabba. He was my favourite character.
Mr. Eagles, that's not revealed in Rogue One, though, is it?
Mr. Pulpstar, would risk making them think Jar Jar Binks is going to be a persistent character...
Mr. P, probably right. I do think Rogue One ties very nicely into A New Hope, though.
Mr. kle4, yeah, child actors tend to be irksome (there are exceptions, such as the kids in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Game of Thrones).
An independent Scotland would start life outside the EU and be forced to join the queue for membership, the European Commission’s official representative in the UK has said in a major blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s Brexit strategy.
Jacqueline Minor said Jean Claude Juncker, the commission’s president, had made clear there would be no more states admitted until 2020 – the year after the UK is expected to leave the European Union. She said there are several countries waiting to become member states, including Montenegro and Serbia, and an independent Scotland “would join that list.” This would mean Scotland being outside both the UK and EU for an indeterminate period.
With the SNP’s leadership reviewing their stance on currency, she said a separate Scotland would have to commit in principle to joining the euro to get membership and show how it intended to bring down its huge deficit, which is even larger than Greece’s.
It surely would be easier for Scotland to progress in the process than others though? Turkey has been on the list thecross that bridge when the come to it - if they win, it will be both more people positively convinced by the snp pitch, and more people willing to risk negatives.
Yes,.
The referendum question will be debated – the Scottish Government likes the last one “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Theresa May could change this to – “Should Scotland leave the UK and set up a new currency?” – which is much less appealing.
It is, but make the question different and losing it, if it were lost, might not kill the issue for a generation if it is relatively close. They would claim the question was unfair in how it presented the options.
If Sturgeon actually calls a referendum before Brexit is completed, TMay will simply say No (as she has already explicitly stated) because you cannot have two, huge, difficult constitutional negotiations going on at once, when each complicates the other. It's politically, legally and intellectually impossible.
Of course, TMay saying No is very likely what Sturgeon wants.
Does may even have to say 'no' outright? Could she say that parliament needs to approve and let it get bogged down for a while?
The Phantom Menace Attack of the Clones Clone Wars Revenge of the Sith Rogue One A New Hope The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi The Force Awakens
You wouldn't start with season 6 of Game of Thrones would you ?
I started with series 3 episode 5 because that is where it happened to have got to when I first had a look at it. I have to say that with something so plot-driven it takes a lot of the interest out of watching the earlier stuff later, because you know what will happen to everyone and have reverse-engineered enough to know something about what has happened already.
Mr. F, that sort of fat-shaming hatred wouldn't be allowed today.
Mr. Observer, clever, for today. I do wonder if Trump will be replaced, at some point, by someone with a similar perspective but a rather less brash style.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
They have an answer to the second - they aren't Tories.
Force Awakens. It's not as good as Rogue One in terms of story but is easier to leap right into with the previous movies working as backstory even if not seen, to a child it won't look dated like a New Hope (which they'll appreciate in time) and has better acting in it, and is simpler with less stodgy stuff than the Phantom Menace (and even as a child I disliked precocious child characters so Anakin may put them off).
Not sure how much children will notice things being dated. My daughter absolutely loves Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty - both of which look incredibly dated now to me but she doesn't notice or care.
But it is true that absolutely the last thing that the Russians and Trump want is a Macron victory in France - especially as it looks like the only way that Merkel will lose in Germany is to the SPD.
Anyway, MPs aren't underpaid. In Parliament their most important role is that of human counting chips, usually at the beck and call of their party leader. The more important it is that a bill is carefully scrutinised, amended and subject to rigorous control by Parliament, the less likely it is to happen. The Article 50 Bill is a classic example of that type.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
Happily or sadly that is the truth that the Cons can't refute. For a "typical" eg. northern constituency, those numbers are stratospheric and other-worldly. For a Lab candidate in, say, worksop, the current MP's salary is pretty good compared with probably many of their peers.
For southern gaylord ponceyboots Cons, however, £75k is expected to come a year or two after starting work at the top four, or a bulge bracket bank or broker, or...or...
So Cons have to suck it up, take a pay cut to be involved in politics, or have money already (eg Richard Benyon although yes he is an extreme).
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
People are smart enough to know that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. How many of those living in northern constituencies (like there's no money in the North, and everyone in Cornwall is loaded....I mean, really???) object to their BBC Licence Fee going to pay £400k a year for a mediocre presenter?
Being an MP is something that those at the top of their tree should consider as their next career move. There is currently precisely zero incentive for them to do so. There is no cash, there is no esteem, there is no acknowledgment by the public of civic endeavor. MPs themselves must take much of the blame, but I'd suggest there are several dozen posters on here who would make superb additions to the House of Commons, if only because they have broad range of experiences to draw upon - and have to assess information very rapidly and take on board how that changes the status quo. But they haven't put themselves forward. And I'm sure, don't regret it.
The salary once you become an MP isn't a problem (Well I might be talking from the perspective of someone who a couple of miles from the afore mentioned Worksop).
It is more the fact you need to dump your previous career, and then you might not be in the job for all that long particularly if you're in a marginal. Perhaps give each party a set pot of cash, a certain amount of money per seat won. Then allow the party to distribute that cash amongst all the seats, how they see fit. The marginals should pay better due to the lower job security.
Good thinking, but the cash should go to the Returning Officer, not the party. In an election the constituents are interviewing applicants for a job and it is for them to stipulate the terms, including salary; and conversely the candidates can indicate the minimum they would accept.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
Happily or sadly that is the truth that the Cons can't refute. For a "typical" eg. northern constituency, those numbers are stratospheric and other-worldly. For a Lab candidate in, say, worksop, the current MP's salary is pretty good compared with probably many of their peers.
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
People are smart enough to know that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. How many of those living in northern constituencies (like there's no money in the North, and everyone in Cornwall is loaded....I mean, really???) object to their BBC Licence Fee going to pay £400k a year for a mediocre presenter?
Being an MP is something that those at the top of their tree should consider as their next career move. There is currently precisely zero incentive for them to do so. There is no cash, there is no esteem, there is no acknowledgment by the public of civic endeavor. MPs themselves must take much of the blame, but I'd suggest there are several dozen posters on here who would make superb additions to the House of Commons, if only because they have broad range of experiences to draw upon - and have to assess information very rapidly and take on board how that changes the status quo. But they haven't put themselves forward. And I'm sure, don't regret it.
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
What a pitiful lack of ability in the Labour ranks. Think - there's a job vacancy where you work. How many of them would you employ as a junior team member? Then, as your boss? Then, as your CEO? Yet these candidates are saying they are up to running the country.
Fire the head-hunter you've employed, and start the search afresh.
As opposed to which other party? Surely not the Conservatives whose final choice (except there was no choice) was between a no-mark who'd had a big job title but small job in the City, and a Home Secretary who'd done nothing in six years with the possible exception of ballsing up immigration (ironic that, given the hopes of some Brexiteers).
Perhaps we should raise MPs' pay.
We should indeed raise MPs pay. Hugely. Reducing to 600 MPs cuts the total wages bill, but I'd make it £100k for a backbencher, £200k for a Minister, £400k for the PM. Enough for people to consider moving from being a success in the private sector without TOO painful a cut in take home pay.
And I'd be far more aggressive on chucking out expenses claims.
MPs salary is not that big a problem, £74 000 is comfortably within the top 10%. However I would raise the PMs salary to £250 000 and Cabinet Ministers salary to £200 000 as presently the salary is below the £160 000 needed to be in the top 1% and the PM should certainly be in the top 1% of earners
I guess near me I'd rather get £xk a year for Bolsover - as it is pretty much guaranteed Labour for life, than £1.5xk for North East Derbyshire. That's a 4 year contract.
It really doesn't matter who the Labour leader is if they can't answer two simple questions: What is Labour for? And Why should I vote for them?
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
They have an answer to the second - they aren't Tories.
Force Awakens. It's not as good as Rogue One in terms of story but is easier to leap right into with the previous movies working as backstory even if not seen, to a child it won't look dated like a New Hope (which they'll appreciate in time) and has better acting in it, and is simpler with less stodgy stuff than the Phantom Menace (and even as a child I disliked precocious child characters so Anakin may put them off).
Not sure how much children will notice things being dated. My daughter absolutely loves Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty - both of which look incredibly dated now to me but she doesn't notice or care.
Less of an issue with animation, to some extent, but you may be right.
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
Madame 'Frexit' looms large as the French political centre disintegrates AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD
Makes it nailed on for Macron doesn't it, given the author of the column.
AEP has also predicted that the Pound would be like the Swiss Franc.
A few small differences between the UK and Switzerland:
UK savings rate 3%; Switzerland 13.7%. UK current account deficit 5.25%; Switzerland a surplus of 11%. UK government debt to GDP 89.2%; Switzerland 34.4%. UK budget deficit 4.4% of GDP; Switzerland surplus.
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
Mr. Eagles, that's not revealed in Rogue One, though, is it?
Mr. Pulpstar, would risk making them think Jar Jar Binks is going to be a persistent character...
Mr. P, probably right. I do think Rogue One ties very nicely into A New Hope, though.
Mr. kle4, yeah, child actors tend to be irksome (there are exceptions, such as the kids in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Game of Thrones).
New Hope is more simple, morally; I think I'd want to wait a while before I introduced the idea that the Rebels could be assassins as well as heroes. It's a better story, too.
6% of its leadership? Sounds like a double edged sword. If the leadership is not that large you can reach the percentage with only a few appointments, but on the other hand if you need to make efficiencies and cut the level of management and some are LGBT, your percentage could drop massively from only a few changes.
As a member of this community I really object to this measure. It's stupid and counterproductive. I fully support gender balance; men and women really do bring different perspectives and diversity to a management team. However, the idea that a gay man or a trans woman are in some ineffable way different to hetero men and cis- women is bizarre.
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
The Phantom Menace Attack of the Clones Clone Wars Revenge of the Sith Rogue One A New Hope The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi The Force Awakens
is the order.
I started with Empire which I loved, and finally watched Star Wars when it was on TV - I stick the rest in with Star Trek movies I've no interest in. I don't get it.
Considering that Corbyn has a massive person support from the membership of the LP, I don't think you should be looking in his direction for the next change of leader. May is in considerable danger of being replaced. Conservative MP's are notorious in their support for holding the Executive to account. May's actions in trying to retain personal control of the Brexit timetable and negotiations without allowing MP's the right to question her, makes her look petty and as if she really has no idea of what she is doing. Though the Tory MP's are presently propping her up, that support could quickly vanish (along with the 30 odd MP's under investigation for electoral fraud and at least 3 others for potential damaging misdemeanours). And then there is Sturgeon. There are a lot of her "suppoters" who are not very happy with her. Even her most faithful can see the flaws in her out UK, in EU arguments. If she doesn't pull the proverbial bunny out of the hat at the SNP conference in March, then Salmond will be making his weary way from Westminster to Holyrood to take up the reins of power, again.
If Sturgeon goes, she won't be succeeded by Salmond as he is not an MSP
How does this boasting of "I tipped/backed so and so at 80/1" work? Is it still legit to mention it if you have had £2 even if overall you lose money in the market?
For instance, in Stoke I could say "I backed the Lib Dems at 140" if they won, which is true and would sound good, but the truth is they're my biggest loser
The salary once you become an MP isn't a problem (Well I might be talking from the perspective of someone who a couple of miles from the afore mentioned Worksop).
It is more the fact you need to dump your previous career, and then you might not be in the job for all that long particularly if you're in a marginal. Perhaps give each party a set pot of cash, a certain amount of money per seat won. Then allow the party to distribute that cash amongst all the seats, how they see fit. The marginals should pay better due to the lower job security.
Good thinking, but the cash should go to the Returning Officer, not the party. In an election the constituents are interviewing applicants for a job and it is for them to stipulate the terms, including salary; and conversely the candidates can indicate the minimum they would accept.
So you would have a Parliament full of folks who would say, yeah, I'll do it for the cost of my bus fare/my chauffeur's lunch time sandwich. A House of Commons full of rich bastards, lottery winners and the long-term unemployable.
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
Apparently the Russians have some dirt on Macron. He should expect incoming.
The story that's being down the rounds - as in RT has been promoting it - is that he has (or has had) a gay lover.
Which may, or may not, be true. He's denied it. But as Mandy Rice-Davis said...
Does that have any traction at all? It wouldn't here, and the French beat us to decriminalising gay sex by two centuries and to gay marriage by two months.
*The referendum regarding the EU produced fewer Remainers for the EU than Sindy produced Remainers for the UK;
* All popular polling says the majority of Scots have no desire for another referendum;
* Popular approval for being in the EU but leaving the UK is under 30%
A capable Labour party would make hay against that background as the only party that is really capable of unseating the Tories and ensuring that the SNP stop blathering on about a fight they picked and lost.
Makes it nailed on for Macron doesn't it, given the author of the column.
Having a young French President who's not afraid to speak English in public will knock down another plank of Brexitism - the idea that the Anglosphere and the EU are oppositional constructs.
The UK’s trade deficit was smaller than expected in December, narrowing to £3.3bn from a revised £3.6bn the previous month.
Analysts had expected the monthly trade deficit to narrow to £3.5bn from the previous month.
On a quarterly measure, the trade deficit narrowed to £8.6bn in the final three months of the year from £14.1bn in the previous quarter primarily due to an increase in exports of goods to non-EU countries, according to the Office for National Statistics on Friday,
The value of goods imported into the UK had exceeded the value of those exported by £3.6bn in November, revised downwards from an initial £4.2bn figure, after a stronger pound helped reverse some of the rise in the cost of imports a month earlier.
The ONS said the £0.3bn narrowing in December was mainly due to an increase in exports of goods to non-EU countries of £1.1bn.
Some economists have predicted that a weaker pound will eventually improve the trade balance by boosting demand for exports and lowering demand for imports.
But in the shorter-term, they caution that the trade deficit will worsen as the immediate effect of a currency depreciation is usually to increase the cost of imported goods for consumers and manufacturers.
Majority voting needs to be in place for the ascension, specifically Spain and to a lesser degree Italy can't be allowed to veto the ascension.
You can't have majority voting for accession because the EU is a series of treaties between all its members. If any member refused to sign a new treaty it could not be ratified.
Apparently the Russians have some dirt on Macron. He should expect incoming.
The story that's being down the rounds - as in RT has been promoting it - is that he has (or has had) a gay lover.
Which may, or may not, be true. He's denied it. But as Mandy Rice-Davis said...
The odds on Fillon look generous to me, now. I just can't see the French voting for a pro-immigration Blairite quasi-socialist like Macron. Look at that Pew polling on Euro attitudes to Muslim bans: the French want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
I reckon Fillon's scandal will blow over, and he therefore has a much better chance that the present odds suggest (4.5)
Miss Plato, I've heard the film itself is actually alright (not seen it), but the trailer doesn't look great and the tweet you mention is hardly embracing diversity...
Mr. T, Fillon's odds were about 8 a week or two ago. May still be value now, of course (at the time I decided to lay Macron rather than back Fillons and Le Pen).
The Phantom Menace Attack of the Clones Clone Wars Revenge of the Sith Rogue One A New Hope The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi The Force Awakens
is the order.
Chronologically in-universe not by release.
That's like suggesting that for children's books you need to read The Magician's Nephew before you read Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. However if you read them in that order then the magic from the first part of Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as the wardrobe is discovered would be redundant and lost.
The second question if easy: you should vote Labour is you do not want a Tory government.
That is an evasion, not an answer. A negative not a positive. Tribalism is not a good answer.
If they want Joe Public to vote for them them they must deal with the most fundamental electoral question of all - "What are Labour going to do for me?"
Don’t know the comparative salaries etc, but I get the impression that across the pond being a Senator is something; being a Representative not so much.
They both make $174,000 (140,000 GBP) assuming no special responsibility
Of course German politicians are keen for an independent Scotland to join the EU....one of the biggest net contributors will have left - so they're bound to be looking for money.....but as they've all been abundantly clear its an internal UK matter and its i) Brexit, ii) Scottish Independence and iii) Scotland applies to join - along with currency, central bank and deficit target met.....but apart from that - a shoo-in.....
How does this boasting of "I tipped/backed so and so at 80/1" work? Is it still legit to mention it if you have had £2 even if overall you lose money in the market
For instance, in Stoke I could say "I backed the Lib Dems at 140" if they won, which is true and would sound good, but the truth is they're my biggest loser
That's a reasonable observation. To give a full breakdown, as of today my biggest winners on this market in order are:
Maria Eagle Rebecca Long-Bailey Ed Miliband John McDonnell
With any of these I win a substantial four figure sum.
My two losers are Owen Smith and David Miliband. I lose a three figure sum on either of these.
My par result on other candidates is a win of £700. I am below par on Clive Lewis, Sir Keir Starmer, Hilary Benn, Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan (but still win a three figure sum on any of these). I am above par on Tom Watson, Angela Rayner and Ed Balls.
There is some minor titivation of other runners and riders, but that's the basic story right now. I expect I'll be continuing to move my money about for the while.
Most of my position has been built up from laying rather than backing. There has barely been a moment on this market when I have felt that the favourite was accurately priced. It's a lot easier to see who the next Labour leader isn't likely to be than to see who it is.
Apparently the Russians have some dirt on Macron. He should expect incoming.
The story that's being down the rounds - as in RT has been promoting it - is that he has (or has had) a gay lover.
Which may, or may not, be true. He's denied it. But as Mandy Rice-Davis said...
The odds on Fillon look generous to me, now. I just can't see the French voting for a pro-immigration Blairite quasi-socialist like Macron. Look at that Pew polling on Euro attitudes to Muslim bans: the French want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
I reckon Fillon's scandal will blow over, and he therefore has a much better chance that the present odds suggest (4.5)
If Macron gets to the runoff he almost certainly wins. If Fillon scrapes past Macron to the runoff, helped by the pensioner vote, he likely wins but Le Pen has an outside chance too
Of course German politicians are keen for an independent Scotland to join the EU....one of the biggest net contributors will have left - so they're bound to be looking for money.....but as they've all been abundantly clear its an internal UK matter and its i) Brexit, ii) Scottish Independence and iii) Scotland applies to join - along with currency, central bank and deficit target met.....but apart from that - a shoo-in.....
It's not the Germans you have to watch but the French, for whom Scottish independence is now a clear national interest.
Comments
A key point on looking into the future is this: it is now clear that most of the Corbyn support inside the Labour party is derived from keyboard members who never go near a CLP meeting. If you look at votes on appointments in which being present at a meeting is required - ie, all those outside the leader, deputy leader and CLP NEC members contests - then moderates win 80% to 90% of the time. What this means is that MPs and candidates will continue to be mostly chosen by moderate members and that CLP delegations to conference are likely to be dominated by moderates. That, in turn, means that the PLP is likely to continue to be to the right of the keyboard membership and that it is unlikely any rule changes lowering the threshold for leadership nominations will be passed. If that is right, then the prospects of another far left candidate making it through to a leadership contest are low, at best.
We will find out about the change to the leadership nomination rules at conference this autumn. If I turn out to be wrong, we can expect a leadership contest in 2018, as a far left candidate will only need 5% of nominations in order to get through to the ballot and Corbyn will be able to step down. The issue then is whether the left will nominate just one candidate, or whether several will step forward. Either way, I think that it will be much harder to create a path to victory - especially now that Momentumi is tearing itself to pieces and so many on the left have now realised that Corbyn always was anti-EU, did not want Remain to win last June and did all he could to sabotage its efforts.
But if I am right Corbyn and the hard left then have a big question to ask themselves: does Jeremy stay in place and lead Labour to catastrophic defeat at the next GE, so destroying the far left inside Labour forever, or does he step down and let the moderate left or even the centre take the can for a defeat? I think there is a good case for believing that the far left may well seek to shift as much blame as possible to its Labour rivals for a 2020 defeat, as that may allow for a comeback in the following decade. Either way, I believe that a leadership election will take place next year.
Of course, we could still get a contest this year. All that it would take is for Len McCluskey (or Gerard Coyne, if there is a miracle) to call for one. That would then give challengers to Corbyn licence to gather nominations without accusation of disloyalty. My sense is that we are well past peak-Corbyn and that if there were a union sanctioned challenge this year he would lose. When he does go, he will take a lot of the keyboard members with him.
Finally, a prediction: buy Nandy; but don't spend too much ;-)
The Theban Sacred Band would've been 18 people rather than 300, at that rate
None of the various potentials - or, frankly, even Corbyn himself - seem to have the faintest idea what to say in answer to the first question let alone the second.
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/829974979617910785
But of course the executive has a vested interest in backbenchers being underpaid and under-resourced.
This rather suggests that the current leadership options can't stomach the sort of answers the think tanks are coming up with, even though they are more likely to appeal to voters - probably because the only answer that fits is going to be some variant of Blairism.
For southern gaylord ponceyboots Cons, however, £75k is expected to come a year or two after starting work at the top four, or a bulge bracket bank or broker, or...or...
So Cons have to suck it up, take a pay cut to be involved in politics, or have money already (eg Richard Benyon although yes he is an extreme).
No way the public would accept MPs earning that kind of money.
International Spectator
IRAN: Hundreds of thousands take to streets demonstrating against US and shouting 'Death to America!' on anniversary of Islamic Revolution
Same as becoming a hedge fund principal, or Uber founder, for that matter.
You can't deprive them of seeing the Star destroyer filling the screen at the start, or Darth Vader emerging from the smoke into the corridor. Rogue One would spoil both of those I think
Also some of the acting looks a little clunky next to the more recent outings, but you won't notice that first time around
You wouldn't start with season 6 of Game of Thrones would you ?
Nothing should deprive people/children of the shock revelation that Vader is Luke's father.
Which in cinematic terms is up there with finding out who is Keyser Soze in The Usual Suspects or the reveal in The Crying Game.
https://twitter.com/emmanuelmacron/status/829849353867128832
It is more the fact you need to dump your previous career, and then you might not be in the job for all that long particularly if you're in a marginal.
Perhaps give each party a set pot of cash, a certain amount of money per seat won. Then allow the party to distribute that cash amongst all the seats, how they see fit. The marginals should pay better due to the lower job security.
Mr. Pulpstar, would risk making them think Jar Jar Binks is going to be a persistent character...
Mr. P, probably right. I do think Rogue One ties very nicely into A New Hope, though.
Mr. kle4, yeah, child actors tend to be irksome (there are exceptions, such as the kids in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Game of Thrones).
Hmmm, on the one hand I'm a feminist... but on the other hand I don't want to disagree with this because it would be Islamophobic. Tricky https://t.co/Dt3PyIJxuT
Yes, you can have a rock solid seat but it only pays c £40k or a marginal at £90k.
Attack of the Clones
Clone Wars
Revenge of the Sith
Rogue One
A New Hope
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
The Force Awakens
is the order.
There is a parallel debate over the CS Lewis Narnia books between Chronologists and Publicationists: http://www.narniaweb.com/resources-links/in-what-order-should-the-narnia-books-be-read/
Mr. Observer, clever, for today. I do wonder if Trump will be replaced, at some point, by someone with a similar perspective but a rather less brash style.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/31/14454124/breitbart-domain-squatter-interview-france-germany-steve-bannon
And this:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/08/french-intelligence-agency-braces-for-russian-bots-to-back-le-pen/
But it is true that absolutely the last thing that the Russians and Trump want is a Macron victory in France - especially as it looks like the only way that Merkel will lose in Germany is to the SPD.
Ministers, however, are woefully underpaid.
Never heard engineering pronounced like vagina before.
Madame 'Frexit' looms large as the French political centre disintegrates
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD
Makes it nailed on for Macron doesn't it, given the author of the column.
Being an MP is something that those at the top of their tree should consider as their next career move. There is currently precisely zero incentive for them to do so. There is no cash, there is no esteem, there is no acknowledgment by the public of civic endeavor. MPs themselves must take much of the blame, but I'd suggest there are several dozen posters on here who would make superb additions to the House of Commons, if only because they have broad range of experiences to draw upon - and have to assess information very rapidly and take on board how that changes the status quo. But they haven't put themselves forward. And I'm sure, don't regret it.
I think she'll fail because of the false military experience claim. She's never been a marine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
A few small differences between the UK and Switzerland:
UK savings rate 3%; Switzerland 13.7%.
UK current account deficit 5.25%; Switzerland a surplus of 11%.
UK government debt to GDP 89.2%; Switzerland 34.4%.
UK budget deficit 4.4% of GDP; Switzerland surplus.
But other than that, spot on AEP.
Which may, or may not, be true. He's denied it. But as Mandy Rice-Davis said...
For instance, in Stoke I could say "I backed the Lib Dems at 140" if they won, which is true and would sound good, but the truth is they're my biggest loser
No change there then.
As I have mentioned many times, I didn't actually back my brilliant 70/1 tip on Button to take the 2009 title. Which did teach me an important lesson.
Miss Plato, Empire Strikes Back is the best film.
*They had a referendum and lost;
*The referendum regarding the EU produced fewer Remainers for the EU than Sindy produced Remainers for the UK;
* All popular polling says the majority of Scots have no desire for another referendum;
* Popular approval for being in the EU but leaving the UK is under 30%
A capable Labour party would make hay against that background as the only party that is really capable of unseating the Tories and ensuring that the SNP stop blathering on about a fight they picked and lost.
"What do you think about the Scots getting a fast-track Scottish application to join the EU?"
"Never going to happen."
"Ja...."
And the writer has tweeted "F#ck white people" He looks remarkably white to me.
What strange times we live in
The UK’s trade deficit was smaller than expected in December, narrowing to £3.3bn from a revised £3.6bn the previous month.
Analysts had expected the monthly trade deficit to narrow to £3.5bn from the previous month.
On a quarterly measure, the trade deficit narrowed to £8.6bn in the final three months of the year from £14.1bn in the previous quarter primarily due to an increase in exports of goods to non-EU countries, according to the Office for National Statistics on Friday,
The value of goods imported into the UK had exceeded the value of those exported by £3.6bn in November, revised downwards from an initial £4.2bn figure, after a stronger pound helped reverse some of the rise in the cost of imports a month earlier.
The ONS said the £0.3bn narrowing in December was mainly due to an increase in exports of goods to non-EU countries of £1.1bn.
Some economists have predicted that a weaker pound will eventually improve the trade balance by boosting demand for exports and lowering demand for imports.
But in the shorter-term, they caution that the trade deficit will worsen as the immediate effect of a currency depreciation is usually to increase the cost of imported goods for consumers and manufacturers.
Decide he can't be beaten, go off to run museums instead.
Mr. T, Fillon's odds were about 8 a week or two ago. May still be value now, of course (at the time I decided to lay Macron rather than back Fillons and Le Pen).
That's like suggesting that for children's books you need to read The Magician's Nephew before you read Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. However if you read them in that order then the magic from the first part of Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as the wardrobe is discovered would be redundant and lost.
If they want Joe Public to vote for them them they must deal with the most fundamental electoral question of all - "What are Labour going to do for me?"
Maria Eagle
Rebecca Long-Bailey
Ed Miliband
John McDonnell
With any of these I win a substantial four figure sum.
My two losers are Owen Smith and David Miliband. I lose a three figure sum on either of these.
My par result on other candidates is a win of £700. I am below par on Clive Lewis, Sir Keir Starmer, Hilary Benn, Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan (but still win a three figure sum on any of these). I am above par on Tom Watson, Angela Rayner and Ed Balls.
There is some minor titivation of other runners and riders, but that's the basic story right now. I expect I'll be continuing to move my money about for the while.
Most of my position has been built up from laying rather than backing. There has barely been a moment on this market when I have felt that the favourite was accurately priced. It's a lot easier to see who the next Labour leader isn't likely to be than to see who it is.
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/rebecca-loos-did-not-degrade-pig-7184357.html