General UK Politics Thread

[Zoë Sumra]

We keep having special-issues UK political threads; it's probably time for another general thread.

Kicking off; MPs' expenses. Just when it seemed that [url="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/smith-faces-sleaze-probe-over-second-home-1625593.html"]the tale of Jacqui Smith's expenses[/url] had hidden, up pops her husband [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/29/jacqui-smith-expenses-film"]watching porn films paid for by the public on her expenses account[/url]. I find this pretty amusing.

[VarysTheSpider]

Making jokes about Jacqboots is too much like shooting fish in a barrel with a machine gun, so I will resist and move on to the [i]other[/i] wanker.

[quote]Cohen told the Press Association that the arrangement had been cleared with the House of Commons authorities. He said that the former Conservative minister John Moore had told MPs "go out boys and spend it" when he introduced a big uprating of the allowance in the 1980s to head off a pay revolt by backbench Tories.

Cohen said that he had taken full advantage of the arrangement ever since. "That is exactly what John Moore said on behalf of Mrs Thatcher to her Tory MPs. That makes it part of my salary," he said. "It really is part of my salary in all but name. That is what it exists for."[/quote]
In fairness, I suppose it's about time someone stood up and said it - [i]'This is our fucking money, plebs, and we'll do with it what we damn well please[/i].' That it comes from the mouth of a socialist... well, if satire died when Kissinger won a nobel peace prize, Henry Cohen's existence is the sound of its corpse releasing trapped wind.

[Maltaran]

The guy's right about the Thatcher years - apparently back then the civil servants in charge of allowance claims would tell the MPs "Sir, you haven't claimed this allowance which you're entitled to - would you like to claim it?" The problem is, no government wants to be seen raising MPs salaries, so they keep fiddling with the expenses system instead, and the result is that the MPs see it as salary money.

[VarysTheSpider]

[quote name='Maltaran' post='1737688' date='Mar 29 2009, 21.12']The problem is, no government wants to be seen raising MPs salaries, so they keep fiddling with the expenses system instead, and the result is that the MPs see it as salary money.[/quote]
I think that's more of a symptom. The real problem, IMHO, is that MPs think a job which provides [i]de facto[/i] job security and a gold plated index-linked pension, demands no fixed working hours or even formal responsibilities and requires no professional or academic qualifications deserves a £200,000 salary.

Begs the question - how much should they get paid? I say we replace the second-home allowance with university-like dorms, grant allowances for travel, work-clothes and office requirements and anything else which helps them do their job, and pay them a base salary of £25,000 (before tax, obviously) - roughly equal to the median salary in the UK. We could also link them, so they only get a pay rise when [i]we[/i] get a pay rise. That'll learn 'em.

And I'm still waiting for my share of the £15 Brown claimed for his lightbulbs.

[Mathis]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1737715' date='Mar 29 2009, 20.59']I think that's more of a symptom. The real problem, IMHO, is that MPs think a job which provides [i]de facto[/i] job security and a gold plated index-linked pension, demands no fixed working hours or even formal responsibilities and requires no professional or academic qualifications deserves a £200,000 salary.

Begs the question - how much should they get paid? I say we replace the second-home allowance with university-like dorms, grant allowances for travel, work-clothes and office requirements and anything else which helps them do their job, and pay them a base salary of £25,000 (before tax, obviously) - roughly equal to the median salary in the UK. We could also link them, so they only get a pay rise when [i]we[/i] get a pay rise. That'll learn 'em.

And I'm still waiting for my share of the £15 Brown claimed for his lightbulbs.[/quote]

Do that and the turnover of MP's would be ridiculous. They might serve a term before applying for a job in the private sector that pays a hell of a lot more than £25 grand plus expenses. Former MP on a CV would be worth something to an employer I would imagine.

Certainly there should be a higher turnover than there is currently, but there is something to be said for experience in an MP.

[mormont]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1737715' date='Mar 29 2009, 21.59']I think that's more of a symptom. The real problem, IMHO, is that MPs think a job which provides [b][i]de facto[/i] job security[/b] and a gold plated index-linked pension, demands no fixed working hours or even formal responsibilities and requires no professional or academic qualifications deserves a £200,000 salary.[/quote]

[i]De facto[/i] job security? For a lucky few, maybe, but there are such things as elections and marginal seats. ;) And as long as I'm playing Devil's Advocate, one must surely recognise that becoming an MP is an extremely competitive and difficult process. Shouldn't good capitalists such as yourself recognise that? :P

[quote]Begs the question - how much should they get paid? I say we replace the second-home allowance with university-like dorms, grant allowances for travel, work-clothes and office requirements and anything else which helps them do their job, and pay them a base salary of £25,000 (before tax, obviously) - roughly equal to the median salary in the UK. We could also link them, so they only get a pay rise when [i]we[/i] get a pay rise. That'll learn 'em.[/quote]

It'll certainly teach them that they need another source of income... this, after all ([i]sans[/i] the dorms) was more or less what used to happen. The result was that Tory MPs all had company directorships and/or second jobs (many still do, of course) while Labour MPs were paid a stipend by the unions.

I think a backbench MP's job is worth no more than (say) £60K per year including expenses, but we do have to deal with reality, and the reality is that in this job if you pay peanuts the monkeys will look for someone to provide the additional bananas to which they have become accustomed.

[VarysTheSpider]

[quote name='Mathis' post='1737847' date='Mar 30 2009, 01.27']Do that and the turnover of MP's would be ridiculous. They might serve a term before applying for a job in the private sector that pays a hell of a lot more than £25 grand plus expenses. Former MP on a CV would be worth something to an employer I would imagine.[/quote]
Ideally, they'd do it the other way around - pursue careers in the private sector and then become an MP. Anyone can get by on £25k. The idea is that this shouldn't just be a "job" to them. It should be a [i]service[/i].

[quote name='mormont' post='1738240' date='Mar 30 2009, 09.50'][i]De facto[/i] job security? For a lucky few, maybe, but there are such things as elections and marginal seats. ;) And as long as I'm playing Devil's Advocate, one must surely recognise that becoming an MP is an extremely competitive and difficult process. Shouldn't good capitalists such as yourself recognise that? :P[/quote]
:lol: I swear this must be the kind of economics that only a politician can follow - the higher the number of applicants, the higher the salary??

By de facto job security I meant what is basically a four year fixed-term contract which it is impossible to get sacked from.

[quote]It'll certainly teach them that they need another source of income... this, after all ([i]sans[/i] the dorms) was more or less what used to happen. The result was that Tory MPs all had company directorships and/or second jobs (many still do, of course) while Labour MPs were paid a stipend by the unions.[/quote]
I got nothing against that, unless there's an explicit conflict of interest.

[ants]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1737715' date='Mar 30 2009, 07.59']I think that's more of a symptom. The real problem, IMHO, is that MPs think a job which provides [i]de facto[/i] job security and a gold plated index-linked pension, demands no fixed working hours or even formal responsibilities and requires no professional or academic qualifications deserves a £200,000 salary.

Begs the question - how much should they get paid? I say we replace the second-home allowance with university-like dorms, grant allowances for travel, work-clothes and office requirements and anything else which helps them do their job, and pay them a base salary of £25,000 (before tax, obviously) - roughly equal to the median salary in the UK. We could also link them, so they only get a pay rise when [i]we[/i] get a pay rise. That'll learn 'em.

And I'm still waiting for my share of the £15 Brown claimed for his lightbulbs.[/quote]
You could also argue that people in charge of running budgets bigger than most large companies, with hundreds of thousands of people on the payroll, should be paid a damn lot. Obviously there is a difference between front and back benchers thought. And if you pay shit, you get shit.

And the second-home allowance is definitely relevant for anyone whose electorate is away from London.

[mormont]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1738255' date='Mar 30 2009, 10.53']Ideally, they'd do it the other way around - pursue careers in the private sector and then become an MP.[/quote]

Many do, of course. But are you suggesting that they should save up before becoming an MP in their 50s or 60s? Again, this takes us back to a pre-existing situation which was enough of a problem that people changed the system to avoid it. Changing it back is just swapping the current problem for the previous one.

[quote]Anyone can get by on £25k. The idea is that this shouldn't just be a "job" to them. It should be a [i]service[/i].[/quote]

'Anyone' can get by on £25K? Even if you live in London? Even if you have children? Nah. I make more than that and I barely manage, even with benefits. (I'm not making any great claims for my financial skills, mind you.)

[quote]:lol: I swear this must be the kind of economics that only a politician can follow - the higher the number of applicants, the higher the salary??[/quote]

No, but the fact that a job is extremely competitive and difficult to get into is used as a justification for high salaries in the business world all the time. Maybe it's the kind of economics only an investment banker can follow? ;)

[quote]By de facto job security I meant what is basically a four year fixed-term contract which it is impossible to get sacked from.[/quote]

That's probably not what most people would define as 'job security', but fair enough.

[quote]I got nothing against that, unless there's an explicit conflict of interest.[/quote]

That's like saying 'I have nothing against cats, unless they have fur'. :P

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='ants' post='1738260' date='Mar 30 2009, 11.13']You could also argue that people in charge of running budgets bigger than most large companies, with hundreds of thousands of people on the payroll, should be paid a damn lot. Obviously there is a difference between front and back benchers thought. And if you pay shit, you get shit.

And the second-home allowance is definitely relevant for anyone whose electorate is away from London.[/quote]
Relevant, yes, totally so. Open to abuse, yes, also so. The point at which my opinion of Margaret Beckett nosedived was when I saw her on the news trying to defend spending £750 of public money on a garden pergola.

I'd like to see greater scrutiny of expense accounts, and the second home allowance reserved for essentials (e.g. kitchen, bathroom, necessary furniture) rather than luxuries such as gardening and TV.

As regards your first point... this is a common argument, and one that carries some weight. However, it does kind of run back to an argument I've seen elsewhere lately; if we want the rich to work we need to offer them more money, yet if we want the poor to work, we have to offer them less money. It's one of those :rolleyes: moments.

A backbench constituency MP's sole job should be representing his constituents. It's an important job and should be remunerated as such. However, there's not necessarily an incentive to ensure they do it well, or even diligently; theoretically the electorate provides that, but a safe-seat MP from any side of the divide doesn't have that to worry about. I'd be happier about regular MPs salaries if their jobs had more scrutiny; I'd be happier about ministers' salaries if they were conditional upon the ministers doing the jobs well; I'd be happier about MPs' pensions if they were considerably smaller.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote]'Anyone' can get by on £25K? Even if you live in London? Even if you have children? Nah. I make more than that and I barely manage, even with benefits. (I'm not making any great claims for my financial skills, mind you.)[/quote]

Lots of people manage to live in London or near it and make less than £25k. Just because it is the South doesn't mean people shit gold here. Sure, there are loads of jobs that pay more, but most actually don't. Most jobs I got offered when I moved here (pre-recession) were around £18-19k, situated just south of London. And I have a masters.

Just a sidenote, really.

As for the allowances, they are shameful. Better raise the MP's base salaries so they're enough and leave it at that, no allowances what so ever.

[ants]

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1738276' date='Mar 30 2009, 21.57']Relevant, yes, totally so. Open to abuse, yes, also so. The point at which my opinion of Margaret Beckett nosedived was when I saw her on the news trying to defend spending £750 of public money on a garden pergola.

I'd like to see greater scrutiny of expense accounts, and the second home allowance reserved for essentials (e.g. kitchen, bathroom, necessary furniture) rather than luxuries such as gardening and TV.[/quote]
On expenses, I think you could cut them back. And on the second property, just pay the going rental for what is considered a reasonable residence. If they already own a house or are staying with family - they don't get it.
[quote name='Eloisa' post='1738276' date='Mar 30 2009, 21.57']As regards your first point... this is a common argument, and one that carries some weight. However, it does kind of run back to an argument I've seen elsewhere lately; if we want the rich to work we need to offer them more money, yet if we want the poor to work, we have to offer them less money. It's one of those :rolleyes: moments.

A backbench constituency MP's sole job should be representing his constituents. It's an important job and should be remunerated as such. However, there's not necessarily an incentive to ensure they do it well, or even diligently; theoretically the electorate provides that, but a safe-seat MP from any side of the divide doesn't have that to worry about. I'd be happier about regular MPs salaries if their jobs had more scrutiny; I'd be happier about ministers' salaries if they were conditional upon the ministers doing the jobs well; I'd be happier about MPs' pensions if they were considerably smaller.[/quote]
I think its just saying if you want really smart, experienced and capable people running for office you need to remunerate them at least partially towards the scale of what they'd get if they did the job in the private sector.

[Galactus]

Varys probably does not have a problem with this, but if you put the politician's salaries at TOO low a level, only those already wealthy will go into politics...

[quote]demands no fixed working hours[/quote]

While that is true, at least swedish MP's work a whole lot. There working hours aren't *fixed* but IIRC the average MP definately spends more than the regular 40-hour work-week on the job.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='VarysTheSpider' post='1737715' date='Mar 29 2009, 16.59']I think that's more of a symptom. The real problem, IMHO, is that MPs think a job which provides [i]de facto[/i] job security and a gold plated index-linked pension, demands no fixed working hours or even formal responsibilities and requires no professional or academic qualifications deserves a £200,000 salary.

Begs the question - how much should they get paid? I say we replace the second-home allowance with university-like dorms, grant allowances for travel, work-clothes and office requirements and anything else which helps them do their job, and pay them a base salary of £25,000 (before tax, obviously) - roughly equal to the median salary in the UK. We could also link them, so they only get a pay rise when [i]we[/i] get a pay rise. That'll learn 'em.[/quote]

Learn 'em not to go into electoral politics, you mean. Or is the British Parliament the only job in the world where you can cut the salary and not expect a drop-off in the quality of applicants?

[Slick Mongoose]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1738400' date='Mar 30 2009, 15.05']Learn 'em not to go into electoral politics, you mean. Or is the British Parliament the only job in the world where you can cut the salary and not expect a drop-off in the quality of applicants?[/quote]

The quality could get lower? :uhoh:

[Daeric]

Current standards make [url="http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1305/screaminglordsutchew0.jpg"]this[/url] look respectable :P

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Slick Mongoose' post='1738404' date='Mar 30 2009, 10.07']The quality could get lower? :uhoh:[/quote]

Things can always get worse.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1738400' date='Mar 30 2009, 15.05']Learn 'em not to go into electoral politics, you mean. Or is the British Parliament the only job in the world where you can cut the salary and not expect a drop-off in the quality of applicants?[/quote]


Ironic, as lots of companies are telling their staff to accept pay cuts or get laid off, so yeah, I think it's true in a lot of cases that "normal" people often just have to suck it up and do the same work anyway, often for less money and in less time, too. I suppose this never really happens to politicians, but one can always wish?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1738562' date='Mar 30 2009, 11.47']Ironic, as lots of companies are telling their staff to accept pay cuts or get laid off, so yeah, I think it's true in a lot of cases that "normal" people often just have to suck it up and do the same work anyway, often for less money and in less time, too. I suppose this never really happens to politicians, but one can always wish?[/quote]

That's true enough, I suppose. But so what if being an MP is a cushy job? The alternative won't save the taxpayers a lot of money.

[VarysTheSpider]

[quote name='mormont' post='1738274' date='Mar 30 2009, 11.56']Many do, of course. But are you suggesting that they should save up before becoming an MP in their 50s or 60s? Again, this takes us back to a pre-existing situation which was enough of a problem that people changed the system to avoid it. Changing it back is just swapping the current problem for the previous one.[/quote]

I don't understand why they'd need to save for it. Their basic expenses would be met, they'd draw a salary a lot of people would kill for. They'd never need to worry about being suddenly evicted or not being able pay bills. They'd never be forced to skip meals. Would they have to take a drop in salary? Probably, yes. If I want to hand my notice in tomorrow and go back-packing around Thailand for six months I'd expect to take a drop in salary too. But I wouldn't do it for the money, and neither should they.

[quote]'Anyone' can get by on £25K? Even if you live in London? Even if you have children? Nah. I make more than that and I barely manage, even with benefits. (I'm not making any great claims for my financial skills, mind you.)[/quote]

Yup. I do it, most of my friends do it, tonnes of graduates do it. I don't know about children.

[quote]No, but the fact that a job is extremely competitive and difficult to get into is used as a justification for high salaries in the business world all the time. Maybe it's the kind of economics only an investment banker can follow? ;)[/quote]

Ah, but the difference is that investment bankers are some of the most greedy and ambitious people out there, whereas politicians are the most... sorry, forgot what I was going to say.

[quote]That's like saying 'I have nothing against cats, unless they have fur'. :P[/quote]
Don't cats have hair? But anyway, there are degrees of these things.

But honestly, I sometimes wonder what difference it all makes - surely being a weapon's company man on the defence select committee is not much further down the spectrum than being wined and dined by BAA when considering to expand Heathrow's runways, and allowing a close friend (indeed, your godson's father) who represents BAA through his own PR firm access to the very top of government to push his case with your backing.

[quote name='galactus']Varys probably does not have a problem with this, but if you put the politician's salaries at TOO low a level, only those already wealthy will go into politics...[/quote]
Or they could draw their salary and expenses from party membership fees. Just saying.

But look, the Home Secretary earns a salary of £140,000 and claims back £0.88 for a bathplug. Gordon Brown was in charge of the countries finances yet thinks the taxpayer should pay for his satellite TV subscription. Backbench MPs draw a salary of £60,000 but when they go to the bar their drinks are subsidised [i]by us[/i].

Given all this, why differentiate between the already-wealthy and the to-be-wealthy when the system so thoroughly corrupts? What's the point?