Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Are they just taking the piss now.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Strongly in favour and we should have done this years ago. 

MPs have not had a decent payrise for decades and to be frank you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Madness that I earn as much as the people running the fricking country. Perhaps if they paid brain surgeon wages we'd have smart people in the House. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"public sector three-month annual growth figure of 4.1%,"

 

Thats the more interesting point... people funding the public services will have salaries cut and mass unemployment, but on the cost side of the equation.. nice rise. At least the pensions are equal.. wait a minute

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I’d be happy for MPs to be paid more on the proviso that: lobbying comes to an end. They receive no donations, no gifts, no ‘dinners’ are arranged, and no ‘back scratching’ of any kind whatsoever. They can be paid a fair amount for the work they do in representing their constituents and doing what’s best for the people of the country. 

How about performance related pay decided by the employer; their constituents?

Edited by ForGreatLager...
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Strongly in favour and we should have done this years ago. 

MPs have not had a decent payrise for decades and to be frank you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Madness that I earn as much as the people running the fricking country. Perhaps if they paid brain surgeon wages we'd have smart people in the House. 

I dont think they really run the country. You have the government who have a certain amount of say, but parliament is essentially a talking shop, and fridays meeting your "customers" - maybe if they didnt see the job as secondary to other work - banks etc, then things might improve

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Strongly in favour and we should have done this years ago. 

MPs have not had a decent payrise for decades and to be frank you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Madness that I earn as much as the people running the fricking country. Perhaps if they paid brain surgeon wages we'd have smart people in the House. 

The expenses scandal came from the 'nudge n wink' of padding out expenses to make up for lack of wage rises. There is an argument to look at an politically acceptable way to increase MPs wages.

What I cannot stand is the absolute hypocrisy from the Tory benches when saying it is 'unaffordable' to increase the wages of skilled Nurses, Teachers, Police, Soldiers, Firefighters - jobs that have a demonstrable benefit and require specific training, yet are happy to add on to their own wages because they 'deem' themselves more important.  Even asking MPs to submit receipts with expenses was deemed an 'affront' to their honour.

 

What specific skills are needed to 'run the fricking country'?  What training was applied to objectively weigh evidence and come to practical and costed answers?  What on-the-job progression allows the building of skills for an entry MP to eventually become a minister of state?  Asbolsute fricking nothing other than the ability to toe the party line - let the Tory paymasters pick up the tab for that.

 

Same Tories here bemoaning that Gary Linkeker is paid by the BBC are quite happy to shake the magic money tree to pay themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think I’d be happy for MPs to be paid more on the proviso that: lobbying comes to an end. They receive no donations, no gifts, no ‘dinners’ are arranged, and no ‘back scratching’ of any kind whatsoever. They can be paid a fair amount for the work they do in representing their constituents and doing what’s best for the people of the country. 

How about performance related pay decided by the employer; their constituents?

Couldn't Agree more. I would also restrict their, and their  families ability to make investments.

I would love to see various MPs and families share purchases in 2012 in the lead up to help to buy announcement. Chock full of Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey etc I would bet. But all hidden from view because unless they own 10% of a company, they don't need to declare an interest.

I'd be more than happy to pay the entire commons £500k p/a each after tax with that caveat.

Edited by Frugal Git
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'd be more than happy to pay the entire commons £500k p/a each after tax with that caveat.

We have a fixed number of MPs and a fixed location.  We can do up some prime housing to give them a pied-a-terre and not have to flip 2nd homes and furnish them on expenses.  I even know of a great building screaming out for use.

 

Grenfell

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We have a fixed number of MPs and a fixed location.  We can do up some prime housing to give them a pied-a-terre and not have to flip 2nd homes and furnish them on expenses.  I even know of a great building screaming out for use.

 

Grenfell

Excellent idea 😂

Also, I'd restrict the post politics gravy train. No after dinner speeches, no jobs at banks, not allowed to take positions on boards. If they want to continue to work, they are only allowed to work in civil service after entering politics.

This would sort out the ones who are in it for the right reasons from those that are not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Excellent idea 😂

Also, I'd restrict the post politics gravy train. No after dinner speeches, no jobs at banks, not allowed to take positions on boards. If they want to continue to work, they are only allowed to work in civil service after entering politics.

This would sort out the ones who are in it for the right reasons from those that are not. 

I'd be happy for them to take the gravy train...just make it public record for the next 30 years.  Every private healthcare directorship for Health Secretaries that 'love the NHS'.  Every Defence contractor for Secretary for defence.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually rather than elections, the whole system should run like a lottery, or work like jury service.

You don't run for parliament, you get picked at random if you're over 18. The prime minister is then picked from the selection britains got talent style.

Fixed for 5 years, then the next random selection occurs.

Would make for an interesting experiment and I doubt the result could be much worse than what we have now 😂

Edited by Frugal Git
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If you take extremes, Trump claims he can’t be bought as he has independent means.  But he is obviously God given barmy.  Income doesn’t make the cream rise - just pricier.

Fair to say he is definitely not a monkey, he's frankly embarrassing the political class and I'm honestly loving it. He is barmy though which just adds to the entertainment - but this is a diagonal comparison to what I'm talking about. He's head of state, much like the Queen. I'm saying those making the laws should be smarter. If you're motivated into civil service for the good of mankind then great but the reality is we could do with a good dose of real people that have had a good career in the real world and those people are not tempted into the HoC by £80k/year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I dont think they really run the country. You have the government who have a certain amount of say, but parliament is essentially a talking shop, and fridays meeting your "customers" - maybe if they didnt see the job as secondary to other work - banks etc, then things might improve

The government makes the laws so in that sense they run things. 

Perhaps if they were paid a wage that reflected that responsibility they wouldn't be leaning on other roles for secondary earnings? To try and fix what is broken by not addressing the thing that is broken is to live without a fix. 

Their salaries are in line with the average earnings of a charted accountant for heaven's sake!

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The expenses scandal came from the 'nudge n wink' of padding out expenses to make up for lack of wage rises. There is an argument to look at an politically acceptable way to increase MPs wages.

What I cannot stand is the absolute hypocrisy from the Tory benches when saying it is 'unaffordable' to increase the wages of skilled Nurses, Teachers, Police, Soldiers, Firefighters - jobs that have a demonstrable benefit and require specific training, yet are happy to add on to their own wages because they 'deem' themselves more important.  Even asking MPs to submit receipts with expenses was deemed an 'affront' to their honour.

 

What specific skills are needed to 'run the fricking country'?  What training was applied to objectively weigh evidence and come to practical and costed answers?  What on-the-job progression allows the building of skills for an entry MP to eventually become a minister of state?  Asbolsute fricking nothing other than the ability to toe the party line - let the Tory paymasters pick up the tab for that.

 

Same Tories here bemoaning that Gary Linkeker is paid by the BBC are quite happy to shake the magic money tree to pay themselves.

Agreed, the political sensitivity of increasing their salaries was felt by Thatcher but the introduction of an expenses account helped patch that gap until the gap became so big.

Not sure this is hypocrisy to be honest. Giving the 2million people in the NHS a payrise of even 1% is vastly, vastly more expensive than the 600 odd MPs. There in lies the rub. They can never have a payrise because there's always someone, somewhere harder done by. If you're an MP you're likely fairly talented and therefore many look outside of government to earn the big bucks. I'm saying if you wan them to focus on the country you must remove that temptation and indeed even ability, to work for third parties. 

The selection process requires only you get more votes in your ward than the next candidate - that is the qualification. But to get yourself in that position generally requires you to be able to think and communicate well. Perhaps we shouldn't pay them anything?

Linekar is paid £1.75m a year, or about 22 times more than an MP.

Are you a little anti Tory only you seem to be flinging Tory out there a lot rather than talking about all MPs. They all get the payrise I think :)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Actually rather than elections, the whole system should run like a lottery, or work like jury service.

You don't run for parliament, you get picked at random if you're over 18. The prime minister is then picked from the selection britains got talent style.

Fixed for 5 years, then the next random selection occurs.

Would make for an interesting experiment and I doubt the result could be much worse than what we have now 😂

I think this is actually a thing - a court of normal people are selected by random in some form of government. They are there to review and advise though. Makes sense to have genuine input from the guy on the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The government makes the laws so in that sense they run things. 

Perhaps if they were paid a wage that reflected that responsibility they wouldn't be leaning on other roles for secondary earnings? To try and fix what is broken by not addressing the thing that is broken is to live without a fix. 

Their salaries are in line with the average earnings of a charted accountant for heaven's sake!

I agree with you that things need to change, but maybe it's the role itself that needs to change. Sitting in a room chatting and then moving to another town to chat some more isn't very productive.

The fact that they all shift jobs without any experience in their new roles reveals how ridiculous the role is. I'm the boss of the environment, oh no, Im the boss of education now!? It's all because they arent really jobs that have any meaning

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I agree with you that things need to change, but maybe it's the role itself that needs to change. Sitting in a room chatting and then moving to another town to chat some more isn't very productive.

The fact that they all shift jobs without any experience in their new roles reveals how ridiculous the role is. I'm the boss of the environment, oh no, Im the boss of education now!? It's all because they arent really jobs that have any meaning

They're not really the boss, the civil service runs the show as far as each department in concerned but the ministerial role is to give direction and be the outward facing head of that department. The fact is if you want a democracy and the ability to kick people out of office then by it's very nature these ministers are temporary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Agreed, the political sensitivity of increasing their salaries was felt by Thatcher but the introduction of an expenses account helped patch that gap until the gap became so big.Not sure this is hypocrisy to be honest. Giving the 2million people in the NHS a payrise of even 1% is vastly, vastly more expensive than the 600 odd MPs. There in lies the rub. They can never have a payrise because there's always someone, somewhere harder done by. If you're an MP you're likely fairly talented and therefore many look outside of government to earn the big bucks. I'm saying if you wan them to focus on the country you must remove that temptation and indeed even ability, to work for third parties. 

Linekar is paid £1.75m a year, or about 22 times more than an MP.
 

Whether Linekar is 22 times more skilled than an MP is a separate discussion.  He has a skill that is recognised by other broadcasters as being comparable to others in the same salary band and beyond.  My point is both are paid by compulsory levies on the public, yet the Tories argument against BBC wage spending is equally applicable to MPs and roundly ignored.

Like I said before, there is an argument to look at a politically acceptable way to look at MP wages. However if your argument against public sector wage improvement is 'We can't afford it - we must live within our means', 'You need to show more effciency/flexibilty with what you do', 'You are already paid well enough compared to...' then expect the same lens applied to you.

Hyprocrisy - the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

 

 

The selection process requires only you get more votes in your ward than the next candidate - that is the qualification. But to get yourself in that position generally requires you to be able to think and communicate well. Perhaps we shouldn't pay them anything?

You mistake the selection process to be elected an MP.  What selections, other than getting party support is there to be competent as an MP?  You could be 18 with no exams, no life experience and get in if voted.  The deliberate ambivalence between technically voting for a local MP and voting to show national affiliation leads naturally to wards were you can stick the appropriately coloured rosette on a pig and get them in.

 

 

Are you a little anti Tory only you seem to be flinging Tory out there a lot rather than talking about all MPs. They all get the payrise I think :)  

I'm well aware of the 'silent' MPs are rubbing their hands in private.  I simply hold to account the party that is in Power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Actually rather than elections, the whole system should run like a lottery, or work like jury service.

You don't run for parliament, you get picked at random if you're over 18. The prime minister is then picked from the selection britains got talent style.

Fixed for 5 years, then the next random selection occurs.

Would make for an interesting experiment and I doubt the result could be much worse than what we have now 😂

I really like this idea.  If you want something wacky, you could apply this to the Lords with some PR thrown in.

Each party can sell as many lordships as they want - let it be an earner so long as its public record. However only a fixed number can take up 'seats' at any one time.

The number of 'Seats' in the lords is capped (say 500) and allocated as per the GE on a Proportional Representation basis adjusted for voter turnout.  If we do this with 2019 results the lords looks like: Source

  • Tories 148 seats
  • Labor 107 seats
  • Other parties 128 seats
  • 165 real world 'peers' that are selected 'Jury Style' (you can add 40 years Tax & NI Contributions, UK Resident, No criminal convictions etc)

The beauty of this is that a Party can't flood the Lords unless given a democratic mandate supported by majority voter turnout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Tories, eh? There's not a good one amongst them. Not one.

how you deal with this is you no longer be a nurse doctor whatever just walk away.  Now Harold shipman. now that`s a good doctor that made a real difference. we need guys like him as a special parliamentary doctor based onsite looking after these guys and immediate family's.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.