Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

2456

Comments

  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    Are they legislators, social workers or both?

    Do they really need expensive office teams who are 80% deployed in the social work sense - primarily as part of their re-election campaign to generate local goodwill. If this activity were sent back to CAB, could the money saved on much smaller teams free up the funds for better paid MPs.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328

    maaarsh said:

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

    9 wickets but only 13 overs in hand.

    Be more aggressive FFS!

    Doesn't matter if you get caught if the next batsman can bat.
    Malan doesn't know any different, and Morgan & Ali are both slow starters. Need to at least Livingstone a go - worst case scenario he gets out quickly, but he'll always keep swinging whilst he's in.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,826
    maaarsh said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    Are they legislators, social workers or both?

    Do they really need expensive office teams who are 80% deployed in the social work sense - primarily as part of their re-election campaign to generate local goodwill. If this activity were sent back to CAB, could the money saved on much smaller teams free up the funds for better paid MPs.
    Calling Nick Palmer to the *Red* courtesy phone....

    I think you will find that the social work thing is often incredibly useful for normal people.

    The weight of an MP phoning up and asking why Mrs Miggins (pensioner) can't seem to get anyone to fix the roof of her Housing Association property etc....
  • Buttler out is the last thing we needed.

    Bump Livingstone up next!
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    Pulpstar said:

    What is it with Paddy Power giving MPs free tickets to go to the footie btw ? Noted that particular freebie a few times..

    What is it with MPs thinking that accepting any freebie from a betting firm is a good idea?
  • Pulpstar said:

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

    I really don't think it matters too much how much we pay MPs. There are far more important effects on the quality of our MPs.

    The voting system, in my opinion, does a lot to lower the quality. As we saw in the last Parliament it gives way too much power to the party machines to discipline backbench MPs.

    If we took steps to reduce the power of the party machines then the job of an MP would be more interesting and you might encourage more interesting people to want to be one.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293

    maaarsh said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    Are they legislators, social workers or both?

    Do they really need expensive office teams who are 80% deployed in the social work sense - primarily as part of their re-election campaign to generate local goodwill. If this activity were sent back to CAB, could the money saved on much smaller teams free up the funds for better paid MPs.
    Calling Nick Palmer to the *Red* courtesy phone....

    I think you will find that the social work thing is often incredibly useful for normal people.

    The weight of an MP phoning up and asking why Mrs Miggins (pensioner) can't seem to get anyone to fix the roof of her Housing Association property etc....
    It was that weight / power that so annoyed me about Owen Paterson - the fact an MP's question carries additional weight is something that could be instantly lost if it's used for dubious purposes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    Deep tactics from NZ here...

    Neesham to Malan, 1 run
    Dropped by Conway stretching to his left.
  • Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
  • One for @Morris_Dancer ...


    Ed Morrish @edmorrish
    ·
    Nov 9
    HR have just informed me that if I don’t stop my game, where I try to sneak the names of important figures from Ancient Rome into emails and meetings, I’ll be facing discipliny action.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

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

    That's the cruel nature of First Past The Post.
    So it's time for change
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

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

    That's the cruel nature of First Past The Post.
    So it's time for change
    Cruel is good in PT's world
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,257
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    JBriskin3 said:

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

    Paywall that I can't access -

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

    R4 are featuring this right now.

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

    The transition of power to the next generation is going to be a bumpy one, IMHO.
    Sounds like Woke nonsense to me.
    Ageing liberals retiring from positions of influence and stumbling off in to the sunset has been the story of the last 10 years. Andrew Neill's experience at GB News late in life was instructive; in trying to resuscitate the ideals and values of free speech that he felt were being lost at the BBC, he was actually found that he was part of a dying age.
  • HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

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

    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,407
    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

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

    That's the cruel nature of First Past The Post.
    So it's time for change
    The public didn't agree the last time they were asked. Time to ask again?
  • Mr. Borough, sounds like he's being punished for being historically pius.
  • TimS said:

    Most jobs where there is a non-negligible risk of death associated with the role are paid significantly more than equivalent less dangerous ones. Two murders in 5 years across a cohort of what, about 1,000 people max? Plus serious injury to some others, death threats to many, and a daily diet of hate online. £80k seems pretty reasonable to me. I would pay more. As someone else mentioned, many more than 5% will be earning £80k+ at some point in their careers. My firms pays our senior managers - people generally in their late 20s or early 30s - about this amount, and they earn a similar salary plus more generous benefits in middle ranking roles in industry. Their jobs are a hell of a lot less pressured or dangerous than that of a member of parliament.

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

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

    I think a soldier in Afghan or maybe a front line police officer is at greater risk. Do we suggest the average squaddies should be on £80k x the comparative risk? I think they might be quite keen to support your position.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,467
    edited November 2021
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What is it with Paddy Power giving MPs free tickets to go to the footie btw ? Noted that particular freebie a few times..

    What is it with MPs thinking that accepting any freebie from a betting firm is a good idea?
    Does one need "from a betting firm" in that sentence, I wonder?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    Rather than brag about how long they have worked, how about bragging about not busting one's hump? Who will own up to the lowest?

    Every now and then Reddit will have a topic about "easiest jobs". It's not uncommon to see people claim that they have essentially automated their job and are getting paid a good salary for very little effort each week. e.g. They run a script and a week's worth of reports are produced.
    I did write a script once that covered for me when I was on holiday, so that I'd have results to show at a meeting the day after I returned to work.

    It worked almost too well.
    I love it. "Excellent stuff, Tim, without a doubt your best work" "Er, thanks"
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,789

    Mr. Borough, sounds like he's being punished for being historically pius.

    He needs to get Agrippa himself.
  • HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?

    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What is it with Paddy Power giving MPs free tickets to go to the footie btw ? Noted that particular freebie a few times..

    What is it with MPs thinking that accepting any freebie from a betting firm is a good idea?
    Does one need "from a betting firm" in that sentence, I wonder?
    No but on levels of dubious freebies one from a betting firm is say way worse than from a local factory wanting to ask for some advice..
  • Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,826

    TimS said:

    Most jobs where there is a non-negligible risk of death associated with the role are paid significantly more than equivalent less dangerous ones. Two murders in 5 years across a cohort of what, about 1,000 people max? Plus serious injury to some others, death threats to many, and a daily diet of hate online. £80k seems pretty reasonable to me. I would pay more. As someone else mentioned, many more than 5% will be earning £80k+ at some point in their careers. My firms pays our senior managers - people generally in their late 20s or early 30s - about this amount, and they earn a similar salary plus more generous benefits in middle ranking roles in industry. Their jobs are a hell of a lot less pressured or dangerous than that of a member of parliament.

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

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

    I think a soldier in Afghan or maybe a front line police officer is at greater risk. Do we suggest the average squaddies should be on £80k x the comparative risk? I think they might be quite keen to support your position.
    4 police officers murdered in the last 5 years. Out of a much larger group.

    The again the assault rate numbers would be interesting.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine

    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
  • US inflation up 6.2% in October versus one year ago and highest since 1990
  • Mr. Malmesbury, police officers also have rather more stable job security. And they don't have MPs claiming they've been using terms like 'pleb'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Hmm, I'm not wholly convinced that's right. Many backbenchers don't do those things anyway. It's part of the overall duties they might do. Ministers by contrast will have things they are required to do on top of the voluntary constituency stuff, and without the voluntary backbench stuff.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    edited November 2021
    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,257

    maaarsh said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    Are they legislators, social workers or both?

    Do they really need expensive office teams who are 80% deployed in the social work sense - primarily as part of their re-election campaign to generate local goodwill. If this activity were sent back to CAB, could the money saved on much smaller teams free up the funds for better paid MPs.
    Calling Nick Palmer to the *Red* courtesy phone....

    I think you will find that the social work thing is often incredibly useful for normal people.

    The weight of an MP phoning up and asking why Mrs Miggins (pensioner) can't seem to get anyone to fix the roof of her Housing Association property etc....
    Absolutely. MPs are many things; but the social work role has increased over the past 20 years. They are essentially the public servant of last resort, which is why they need large caseworker teams to deal with difficult issues and customers - some raising terrible injustices, amongst all the guff. As I recall, one of the significant problems arising from the Jared O'Mara episode was that this function was not being fulfilled at all whilst he was abandoned by his party and took months off on mental health grounds.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328
    Moeen really needs to deliver some pay back on the balls he's taken up, or get out, very soon. Malan threatened to accelerate for a bit but has calmed down.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist

    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.
  • Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    A backbencher is not *required* to sit on select committees, partic if they do not require the additional payment for doing so. A backbencher can just be a backbencher. Your MP, if she/he is a cabinet minister (or even PM) is still your constituency MP. Therefore the executive role is additional to their work as a constituency MP. If a constituent has a question they merely deal through different channels rather than hoping they might catch the speakers eye. It is somewhat ludicrous that someone who is part of the executive is also part of the legislature, but that is how our system works. So, sorry, you are wrong, it is an extra job, so my point stands.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Crikey yes that's a very good point. I wonder if Cox had thoroughly scrutinised whichever bit of legislation he was going to vote on when the division bell rang as he was representing the Virgin Islands ?
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    I think a very large number of people currently earning 80-130k would fall in that bracket and it wouldn't make them suspect.
  • Breaking news.

    Those silhouettes look a bit disturbing, the guy on the left appears to be looking on gleefully at the one on the right committing an unspeakable act on bawheid.


  • TazTaz Posts: 3,012

    US inflation up 6.2% in October versus one year ago and highest since 1990

    "Transient"
  • Pick the pace up! Still have eight wickets and I don't think we have had even a single 6 yet. This just isn't good enough.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,826

    Mr. Malmesbury, police officers also have rather more stable job security. And they don't have MPs claiming they've been using terms like 'pleb'.

    You mean like Cressida Dick?

    Personal anecdote - many years ago a friend got involved in a case that involved a police officer committing a crime. The efforts to save said police officer were heroic.

    On the day court case got lost in the NFA file, a article appeared in the Oxford Times. A police officer had lost his job, since he had mistakenly claimed an amount that was something like £1.68

    My friend and I just laughed.

    I think that some animals are more equal than others.

    Bit like the Plebeian and Equestrian Orders, really.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    Taz said:

    US inflation up 6.2% in October versus one year ago and highest since 1990

    "Transient"
    Democrats midterm prospects ?

    "Fucked"
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.

    Well of course you are right, there are some clowns that earn even more than that. I believe Charlie Chaplin earned a small fortune. Thankfully he never thought that his schooling entitled him to become Prime Minister (or President).
  • Pick the pace up! Still have eight wickets and I don't think we have had even a single 6 yet. This just isn't good enough.

    Couldn't you have posted the no sixes bit a few overs ago?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    I think a very large number of people currently earning 80-130k would fall in that bracket and it wouldn't make them suspect.
    See those people who won't get out of bed for less than 100k? I'm ok with them self-excluding from the running.
    If 80k isn't worth someone's while, cool. So be it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,012
    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    US inflation up 6.2% in October versus one year ago and highest since 1990

    "Transient"
    Democrats midterm prospects ?

    "Fucked"
    I'm glad I got on the bets Quincel recommended last week.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,574
    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031

    One for @Morris_Dancer ...


    Ed Morrish @edmorrish
    ·
    Nov 9
    HR have just informed me that if I don’t stop my game, where I try to sneak the names of important figures from Ancient Rome into emails and meetings, I’ll be facing discipliny action.

    That’s the Cato Institute on the ban list, then.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist

    I refer to my answer that mentions Charlie Chaplin.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031

    Breaking news.

    Those silhouettes look a bit disturbing, the guy on the left appears to be looking on gleefully at the one on the right committing an unspeakable act on bawheid.

    So that’s what equerries do, then.
    Always wondered.
  • kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Hmm, I'm not wholly convinced that's right. Many backbenchers don't do those things anyway. It's part of the overall duties they might do. Ministers by contrast will have things they are required to do on top of the voluntary constituency stuff, and without the voluntary backbench stuff.
    I'm sure that on average members of the executive work longer hours on MP and Ministerial work than backbenchers, but I don't think that makes the job of a backbench MP fundamentally part-time.

    A backbench MP could easily work full-time as an MP and do useful work in that time, and much of that work would be the work of attempting to hold the executive to account that they would stop doing when they joined the executive.

    It's not the case that there's nothing an MP stops doing when they become a Minister, which was the argument made that led to the conclusion that the job of an MP was part-time.
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,012
    Nigelb said:

    Breaking news.

    Those silhouettes look a bit disturbing, the guy on the left appears to be looking on gleefully at the one on the right committing an unspeakable act on bawheid.

    So that’s what equerries do, then.
    Always wondered.
    The Crown Jewels always need polishing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,295
    edited November 2021
    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328
    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    I think a very large number of people currently earning 80-130k would fall in that bracket and it wouldn't make them suspect.
    See those people who won't get out of bed for less than 100k? I'm ok with them self-excluding from the running.
    If 80k isn't worth someone's while, cool. So be it.
    Someone who thinks 80k is brilliant as it's a 40k pay-rise for them is not more virtuous than someone who turns down the chance at a 30k pay cut.
  • kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Hmm, I'm not wholly convinced that's right. Many backbenchers don't do those things anyway. It's part of the overall duties they might do. Ministers by contrast will have things they are required to do on top of the voluntary constituency stuff, and without the voluntary backbench stuff.
    My point exactly. A backbencher (without the extra remunerated select committee stuff) is a part time role.
  • RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    Self-appointed judge. Just like the rest of us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.
    Well of course you are right, there are some clowns that earn even more than that. I believe Charlie Chaplin earned a small fortune. Thankfully he never thought that his schooling entitled him to become Prime Minister (or President).

    Churchill was also a successful journalist like Boris, some actors like Chaplin have even made it to the top in politics, eg Reagan, Schwarzanneger, Glenda Jackson etc
  • Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    US inflation up 6.2% in October versus one year ago and highest since 1990

    "Transient"
    Democrats midterm prospects ?

    "Fucked"
    Trump 2024.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,574

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    The 'to defend a tax haven' bit doesn't seem very relevant to me.
  • Nigelb said:

    Breaking news.

    Those silhouettes look a bit disturbing, the guy on the left appears to be looking on gleefully at the one on the right committing an unspeakable act on bawheid.

    So that’s what equerries do, then.
    Always wondered.
    There is a homophobe's pun in there if they look hard enough. (ah, an accidental double entendre!!)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Crikey yes that's a very good point. I wonder if Cox had thoroughly scrutinised whichever bit of legislation he was going to vote on when the division bell rang as he was representing the Virgin Islands ?
    Well that's part of the problem. The whipping system effectively deskills the job of being an MP because an MP is instructed simply to vote as directed.

    It's easy to see how that would be demotivating, and lead people to look for not interesting work elsewhere.
  • Since it's impossible to live on my lecturer's income, which is somewhat lower than an MP's, I will be forced to start selling A grades to students. The only way to stop me to is to immediately double my salary. I'm sure everyone will agree this is a reasonable position

    https://twitter.com/james_e_baldwin/status/1458365595221647361
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
    It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

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

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

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

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

    {Add more here}

    The current system where you get the job, and that's it, seems inadequate.
    As I said on the previous thread, it is clearly part time. How else could an MP also be a minister. One day she/he is a backbencher, the next day a minister, junior or cabinet. To my knowledge there is no-one that then takes over any of the duties of being a constituency MP. Therefore it is a part time job. The problem for most MPs with a red rosette is that no-one wants to employ them, except perhaps a trade union, so they pretend it is a full time job.
    When an MP becomes a minister they give up a lot of the Parliamentary work of a backbencher. They no longer ask questions of the executive, or scrutinise legislation. They don't sit on select committees.

    It's a different job, not an extra one.
    Hmm, I'm not wholly convinced that's right. Many backbenchers don't do those things anyway. It's part of the overall duties they might do. Ministers by contrast will have things they are required to do on top of the voluntary constituency stuff, and without the voluntary backbench stuff.
    I'm sure that on average members of the executive work longer hours on MP and Ministerial work than backbenchers, but I don't think that makes the job of a backbench MP fundamentally part-time.

    A backbench MP could easily work full-time as an MP and do useful work in that time, and much of that work would be the work of attempting to hold the executive to account that they would stop doing when they joined the executive.

    It's not the case that there's nothing an MP stops doing when they become a Minister, which was the argument made that led to the conclusion that the job of an MP was part-time.
    Being an MP is not itself part time. But I suppose the issue is how full time are we talking? Thats a big range. But there is an element of choice to that range, so how much time they have or could have left over for other work is an open question.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,574

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
    It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
    That may have been what it was designed for, but I am interested in whether the rules specifically excluded it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
    It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
    Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though.
    Top social distancing,
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.
    Well of course you are right, there are some clowns that earn even more than that. I believe Charlie Chaplin earned a small fortune. Thankfully he never thought that his schooling entitled him to become Prime Minister (or President).
    Churchill was also a successful journalist like Boris, some actors like Chaplin have even made it to the top in politics, eg Reagan, Schwarzanneger, Glenda Jackson etc

    Oh dear you aren't one of those deluded sycophants that want to compare Bozo with The Great Man are you? Surely you can see there is no comparison except for the slightly rotund figure?

    Besides, I think you missed the point. Chaplin was a clown. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Glenda Jackson were/are not.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383
    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    I think a very large number of people currently earning 80-130k would fall in that bracket and it wouldn't make them suspect.
    See those people who won't get out of bed for less than 100k? I'm ok with them self-excluding from the running.
    If 80k isn't worth someone's while, cool. So be it.
    Someone who thinks 80k is brilliant as it's a 40k pay-rise for them is not more virtuous than someone who turns down the chance at a 30k pay cut.
    Never said they were. But if someone won't get out of bed for less than 100k then they clearly don't see a value in the job other than the money they can make from it. "My country needs me" is a better attitude than "my country needs me but if I can't rake it in I won't respond". Obviously.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031



    …Besides, I think you missed the point. Chaplin was a clown. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Glenda Jackson were/are not...

    Not much of a moviegoer, are you ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    Not being willing to do the job was not one of the problems I was picturing. I think people will do it regardless. But if it is underpaid that adds pressures or leads to issues around expenses etc.

    Of course people may not agree it us underpaid. But just because people put up with something doesnt mean theres no issue - more normal jobs have that all the time.
  • Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    Self-appointed judge. Just like the rest of us.
    I prefer to wait for a judgement
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,012

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    Political point scoring and trying to keep the "scandal" going.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
    It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
    Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though.
    Top social distancing,
    It reminds me of Boris' single person Covid childcare wizz on christmas day tbh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.
    Well of course you are right, there are some clowns that earn even more than that. I believe Charlie Chaplin earned a small fortune. Thankfully he never thought that his schooling entitled him to become Prime Minister (or President).
    Churchill was also a successful journalist like Boris, some actors like Chaplin have even made it to the top in politics, eg Reagan, Schwarzanneger, Glenda Jackson etc
    Oh dear you aren't one of those deluded sycophants that want to compare Bozo with The Great Man are you? Surely you can see there is no comparison except for the slightly rotund figure?

    Besides, I think you missed the point. Chaplin was a clown. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Glenda Jackson were/are not.

    Chaplin was not a clown either, he was actually intelligent and perceptive, see the Great Dictator
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,383

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    Self-appointed judge. Just like the rest of us.
    I prefer to wait for a judgement
    You regularly make judgements on people's behaviour. So do I. There's nothing wrong with it.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328
    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    maaarsh said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    I think a very large number of people currently earning 80-130k would fall in that bracket and it wouldn't make them suspect.
    See those people who won't get out of bed for less than 100k? I'm ok with them self-excluding from the running.
    If 80k isn't worth someone's while, cool. So be it.
    Someone who thinks 80k is brilliant as it's a 40k pay-rise for them is not more virtuous than someone who turns down the chance at a 30k pay cut.
    Never said they were. But if someone won't get out of bed for less than 100k then they clearly don't see a value in the job other than the money they can make from it. "My country needs me" is a better attitude than "my country needs me but if I can't rake it in I won't respond". Obviously.
    You keep using childish language about getting out of bed. If someone already gets out of bed for 110k a year, they're very unlikely to have arranged their life so they could afford to lose 25% of their income without any pain.

    It neither makes them better or worse suited to being an MP than someone for whom is is a massive pay rise (although on your line of reasoning, that 2nd group of people are probably morally suspect as they'll definitely be excited by the 80k).
  • kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

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

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

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

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

    I agree. It probably causes myriad problems that increasing even half that would be unviable, even if accompanied by reduction in expenses.
    Which people do you suppose would be unwilling to be an MP for 80k but would do it for 120k.

    If I knew someone's view was "I'll do it for 120k but I wouldn't for 80k", I would definitely not vote for them.
    Not being willing to do the job was not one of the problems I was picturing. I think people will do it regardless. But if it is underpaid that adds pressures or leads to issues around expenses etc.

    Of course people may not agree it us underpaid. But just because people put up with something doesnt mean theres no issue - more normal jobs have that all the time.
    Well indeed. It is also a difficult balance to strike. What about someone who becomes an MP who has been on a pretty low salary up to that point? As many of them are just cannon fodder that trot out the party line perhaps some people who are on the minimum wage could do the job with a bit of training. Allow the executive to recruit people from outside the legislature like they do in the US and the whole thing is easily sorted
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,012
    More like it England.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031
    Whoever it was that suggested Livingstone ought to have been moved up the order is not wrong.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    Is she the Standard Commissioner or just acting as a self appointed judge on these matters
    Self-appointed judge. Just like the rest of us.
    I prefer to wait for a judgement
    You regularly make judgements on people's behaviour. So do I. There's nothing wrong with it.
    Not on a person guilt who is under investigation
  • Nigelb said:

    Whoever it was that suggested Livingstone ought to have been moved up the order is not wrong.

    As a member of Lancashire CCC it isn't unfair to describe Livingstone as Jos Buttler without the keeping gloves.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328
    Moeen again steal the strike after successfully stalling a quick start to the over.

    Unfortunately we have a few too many players who act as control rods slowing down the efforts of our big hitters, and we're now going to have to bowl very well to survive it today.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,031
    edited November 2021

    Nigelb said:

    Whoever it was that suggested Livingstone ought to have been moved up the order is not wrong.

    As a member of Lancashire CCC it isn't unfair to describe Livingstone as Jos Buttler without the keeping gloves.
    Damn, Moeen just stole the strike.
    And damn.
  • Is 166 any good
  • pingping Posts: 1,645
    I agree, Mike.

    This ain’t going away
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,328

    Is 166 any good

    Depends if the ball is piss wet through after 5 overs. Been a very easy world cup to chase in given the playing conditions are so poor.
  • Is 166 any good

    No, the dew alone will hand the match to the Kiwis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287

    Is 166 any good

    Possibly, we'll need to bowl well though.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They should at least be clearly in the top 1% of earners given the responsibilities they have
    'You people aren't just on a different planet. You're in an alternative reality. Or rather unreality.'
    Hardly, being an MP should be a top 10% job, being PM or a Cabinet Minister should be a top 1% job.

    Do we want the best people in Parliament or government or not? Yes it is a public service role that should not be gone into solely for money but at the same time as the old saying goes 'if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
    There can't be that many clowns in the history of circus who earned the equivalent of £162k a year?
    That is quite scary. It looks like HYUFD's attempt to increase MPs salaries (I guess he wants to be one) is my view! Only the last (tongue in cheek) sentence is mine
    Boris was earning 3 times what he gets as PM when he was a journalist
    Boris was also earning way more (7-15 times) more than your typical journalist.
    Well of course you are right, there are some clowns that earn even more than that. I believe Charlie Chaplin earned a small fortune. Thankfully he never thought that his schooling entitled him to become Prime Minister (or President).
    Churchill was also a successful journalist like Boris, some actors like Chaplin have even made it to the top in politics, eg Reagan, Schwarzanneger, Glenda Jackson etc
    Oh dear you aren't one of those deluded sycophants that want to compare Bozo with The Great Man are you? Surely you can see there is no comparison except for the slightly rotund figure?

    Besides, I think you missed the point. Chaplin was a clown. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Glenda Jackson were/are not.
    Chaplin was not a clown either, he was actually intelligent and perceptive, see the Great Dictator

    I don't think this particular organisation has listed Johnson yet, but they will definitely disagree with you: https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/misc/articles/145-Clown-Ministry
  • The last delivery of the England innings was a clue to how the dew will ruin it for the England fielders.
  • Nigelb said:



    …Besides, I think you missed the point. Chaplin was a clown. Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Glenda Jackson were/are not...

    Not much of a moviegoer, are you ?
    Bit harsh re Glenda.
  • Uh oh.

    Chief Whip spox confirms Geoffrey Cox's proxy vote was sanctioned - but says MPs were expected to continue 'primary task' of serving constituents

    'All MPs expected to follow proceedings & participate virtually. They were expected to continue primary task of serving constituents'


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1458460931172745221
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    Are on to Boris now?

    Let’s get the comparison right.

    How much did Benny Hill earn, and what about his side job as singer/songwriter of “Ernie, the Fastest Milkman in the West”?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,125
    Times now listing actions of MP for Salop.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    dr_spyn said:

    Times now listing actions of MP for Salop.

    Dodgy AF, that one.
  • Are on to Boris now?

    Let’s get the comparison right.

    How much did Benny Hill earn, and what about his side job as singer/songwriter of “Ernie, the Fastest Milkman in the West”?

    Possibly a better comparison than Chaplin, particularly from a BMI perspective
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,600
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    A statement from Dodds on Cox.

    Responding to his statement, she added: "We have it in black and white.

    "The Conservatives not only knew that Geoffrey Cox was jetting off to defend a Caribbean tax haven, they gave him the green light to vote by proxy while he was there.

    "There really is one rule for senior Tories and another rule for everyone else."


    What rule is it that only applies to him and senior Tories and not to others?

    I saw on Twitter, will have to dig it out, that the remote voting was solely designed to allow MPs to not attend because of Covid-19, that the other standing orders of the House remained regarding voting/pairing etc.

    So if he was out of the country for non governmental/parliamentary business he should have asked for a pair (something the opposition may not have granted if they knew the reasons for it.)
    It wasn't just MPs self-isolating was it? I thought it was a more general provision that let them vote remotely.
    It was designed to allow ensure social distancing, not to allow MPs to decamp overseas.
    Cox is just pointing out he’s in a completely different class to everyone else, though.
    Top social distancing,
    My wife can beat that. When the pandemic started last Feb she was atop Kilimanjaro.
  • Nigelb said:

    Breaking news.

    Those silhouettes look a bit disturbing, the guy on the left appears to be looking on gleefully at the one on the right committing an unspeakable act on bawheid.

    So that’s what equerries do, then.
    Always wondered.
    There is a homophobe's pun in there if they look hard enough. (ah, an accidental double entendre!!)
    "The Straight Dictator" :lol:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,789

    Are on to Boris now?

    Let’s get the comparison right.

    How much did Benny Hill earn, and what about his side job as singer/songwriter of “Ernie, the Fastest Milkman in the West”?

    Apparently he left an estate worth £7.5 million in 1992.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hill
This discussion has been closed.