UK Politics - BoJo Kool-Aid vs Project Fear Cocktail of Terror

[Spockydog]

. 

[The Anti-Targ]

If it's the price that needs to be paid to get these MPs off the gravy train of cash for advocacy and influence second jobs, then it's arguably worth it. Though perhaps now that it seems to be official Labour policy to get rid of the sleaziest forms of sleazy it's worth being patient and waiting for the next time Labour is the government.

Though I don't really know why I'm suggesting anything can really fix the shit show of partisan democracy. Democracy has to be transformed, not reformed.

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If it's the price that needs to be paid to get these MPs off the gravy train of cash for advocacy and influence second jobs, then it's arguably worth it. Though perhaps now that it seems to be official Labour policy to get rid of the sleaziest forms of sleazy it's worth being patient and waiting for the next time Labour is the government.

Though I don't really know why I'm suggesting anything can really fix the shit show of partisan democracy. Democracy has to be transformed, not reformed.

It won’t get them off it. If £80k isnt enough for them to scrape by on, £100k won’t either. Especially given that they already claim expenses, hire family, rent out their London properties, and get subsidised food and drink in the parliament.

If they want to quit, good riddance. There’s no shortage of peolle after the job.

And that’s before we get to the Lords’, some of whom turn up for a few minutes to claim their allowance.

[Spockydog]

For those who are interested, you can check precisely how much your MP has earned outside of his or her Parliamentary work here.

My own MP, Bambos Charalambous, has nil outside earnings. That means that, as well as having the best username in the House, he is working entirely for me and my neighbours.

And if your MP is earning £150K-£250K from a second job, you should really ask yourself who this person is actually working for, because you can be sure as shit they ain't working for you.

It's called public service for a reason.

 

[BigFatCoward]

14 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

For those who are interested, you can check precisely how much your MP has earned outside of his or her Parliamentary work here.

My own MP, Bambos Charalambous, has nil outside earnings. That means that, as well as having the best username in the House, he is working entirely for me and my neighbours.

And if your MP is earning £150K-£250K from a second job, you should ask yourself who this person is really working for, because you can be sure as shit they ain't working for you.

It's called public service for a reason.

 

My tory MP got Nil. I guess it's because she is too grossly incompetent for anyone else to employ her. She was the one organising a nativity instead of reading the brexit bill while fisheries minister (even though her county is landlocked). 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Jim Hackett discussing this very issue

 

[Heartofice]

The idea that running the country could be a part time job is basically stupid but also explains a lot! 
 

I also don’t find it all that credible that we need to entice people to become politicians through high pay or that these are the best and the brightest who have their pick of industry.

A lot of politicians in this country are career politicians, they aren’t experts in their field looking to add to society, they are people who decided at a young age that they want to get into poltics and trained for that very thing. This is why I am constantly amazed that these people can even get a second job. What skills do they actually have? Debating and avoiding answering questions mainly. 
 

The incentive isn’t money clearly because it will always be worse paid than a similar level job elsewhere. So it’s about making sure it’s at least competitive. I can’t see a good argument for letting them have second jobs however, all that does is highlight how little attention they pay to running the country 

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Though I don't really know why I'm suggesting anything can really fix the shit show of partisan democracy. Democracy has to be transformed, not reformed.

This country is in desperate need of PR. And it should be top of the legislative agenda for the next Labour/Lib Dem/Green coalition. Because that's what's coming next.

Unless of course the left is okay with having power once in a blue fucking moon. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

In terms of their responsibility and personal risk, you could make the argument that they are underpaid, but I agree with Mormont that they should be pretty far from the front of the queue in having this fixed. The idea that they need second jobs to support themselves is fucking laughable though.

[A wilding]

39 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

This country is in desperate need of PR. And it should be top of the legislative agenda for the next Labour/Lib Dem/Green coalition. Because that's what's coming next.

Unless of course the left is okay with having power once in a blue fucking moon. 

The problem with that, from a leftist perspective, is that Labour don't want PR, or at least the Labour hierarchy don't.

They think that all left leaning voters should be voting for them, and like a system where such voters are under heavy pressure to do so (I have seen various anecdotal examples of this myself). Ultimately I think they genuinely prefer to be in power only occasionally, rather than to be in power more often but as as part of a left leaning coalition. They also fear that with PR their vote might further drain away to other left leaning parties.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

In terms of their responsibility and personal risk, you could make the argument that they are underpaid, but I agree with Mormont that they should be pretty far from the front of the queue in having this fixed. The idea that they need second jobs to support themselves is fucking laughable though.

I suppose the argument would be that given them a huge boost (but stopping any second streams of income at all) would be relatively cheap, as there's only 650 of them. 

And it wouldn't be hard to come up with expenses rules that stop them taking the piss. 

[dog-days]

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

For those who are interested, you can check precisely how much your MP has earned outside of his or her Parliamentary work here.

My own MP, Bambos Charalambous, has nil outside earnings. That means that, as well as having the best username in the House, he is working entirely for me and my neighbours.

And if your MP is earning £150K-£250K from a second job, you should really ask yourself who this person is actually working for, because you can be sure as shit they ain't working for you.

It's called public service for a reason.

 

Hmm, my MP is apparently a London landlord, despite being Labour. Or Labour-and-the-Cooperative Party, to be precise. I though the latter was the remains of a Wikipedia April Fools joke, but it seems not! 

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The idea that running the country could be a part time job is basically stupid but also explains a lot! 
 

I also don’t find it all that credible that we need to entice people to become politicians through high pay or that these are the best and the brightest who have their pick of industry.

A lot of politicians in this country are career politicians, they aren’t experts in their field looking to add to society, they are people who decided at a young age that they want to get into poltics and trained for that very thing. This is why I am constantly amazed that these people can even get a second job. What skills do they actually have? Debating and avoiding answering questions mainly.

The two bolded bits strike me as somewhat incompatible opinions, because if we're acknowledging that governing and public policy are full time, professional jobs in the modern world, we also need to acknowledge that means there's an associated skill set.

And in my experience, knowing a few politicians, there is. Skills a good politician has include but are not limited to time management, prioritising, managing people, negotiating, adaptability, retaining information, leadership, being able to master new topics quickly, and communication skills, both media and in person. They're really good, in short, at the things that in business are called 'soft skills'.

As such I think it's perfectly reasonable that a former MP might get appointments to the board of a company or public body. They have the right skills and probably relevant knowledge in areas like governance and regulation.

However, this does not mean they should be allowed to do those jobs while they are still an MP.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

This country is in desperate need of PR. And it should be top of the legislative agenda for the next Labour/Lib Dem/Green coalition. Because that's what's coming next.

Unless of course the left is okay with having power once in a blue fucking moon. 

PR is a tinkering reform, nothing close to what needs to be done to shake up democracy so that govt properly serves the interests of all people. Look at all the countries with PR, they are not any better off politically, socially or economically. It is better than FPTP, but that's like saying 'flu is better than COVID-19. You don't want either, but if you have to pick then you'll probably go with 'flu.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The idea that running the country could be a part time job is basically stupid but also explains a lot! 
 

I also don’t find it all that credible that we need to entice people to become politicians through high pay or that these are the best and the brightest who have their pick of industry.

A lot of politicians in this country are career politicians, they aren’t experts in their field looking to add to society, they are people who decided at a young age that they want to get into poltics and trained for that very thing. This is why I am constantly amazed that these people can even get a second job. What skills do they actually have? Debating and avoiding answering questions mainly. 
 

The incentive isn’t money clearly because it will always be worse paid than a similar level job elsewhere. So it’s about making sure it’s at least competitive. I can’t see a good argument for letting them have second jobs however, all that does is highlight how little attention they pay to running the country 

 

4 hours ago, mormont said:

The two bolded bits strike me as somewhat incompatible opinions, because if we're acknowledging that governing and public policy are full time, professional jobs in the modern world, we also need to acknowledge that means there's an associated skill set.

And in my experience, knowing a few politicians, there is. Skills a good politician has include but are not limited to time management, prioritising, managing people, negotiating, adaptability, retaining information, leadership, being able to master new topics quickly, and communication skills, both media and in person. They're really good, in short, at the things that in business are called 'soft skills'.

As such I think it's perfectly reasonable that a former MP might get appointments to the board of a company or public body. They have the right skills and probably relevant knowledge in areas like governance and regulation.

However, this does not mean they should be allowed to do those jobs while they are still an MP.

The one "skill" they are hired for with these second jobs  while MPs is access to power and influence over it. I guess one is a skill (ability to influence) and the other is a circumstantial attribute (access to power).

[Werthead]

On 11/18/2021 at 10:52 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

PR is a tinkering reform, nothing close to what needs to be done to shake up democracy so that govt properly serves the interests of all people. Look at all the countries with PR, they are not any better off politically, socially or economically. It is better than FPTP, but that's like saying 'flu is better than COVID-19. You don't want either, but if you have to pick then you'll probably go with 'flu.

I mean, PR would stop the country being ruled over by a minority party in terms of overall vote share but with a massive majority in the Commons, which is inherently anti-democratic. It would mean more coalition governments from both the right and the left, but that is not necessarily a bad thing; the Lib Dem-Tory coalition was surprisingly stable and successful (at least from their POV) for five years (especially compared to the shitshow that followed) because the coalition agreement set out terms and conditions for what they were going to do and everyone stuck to it.

You're right that PR is not a magic wand that solves the problems of the country overnight, but it solves that problem, even if none of the others (it does also create the spectre of the infamous Labour-Lib Dem-Green-SNP Alliance, which would be...interesting to watch in action, or if it would just implode before getting anything done).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

You're right that PR is not a magic wand that solves the problems of the country overnight, but it solves that problem, even if none of the others (it does also create the spectre of the infamous Labour-Lib Dem-Green-SNP Alliance, which would be...interesting to watch in action, or if it would just implode before getting anything done).

I fail to see that coalition happening. The SNP wants out of the Union so them joining a Westminster goverment is kinda doing the opposite. I mean, the price would be IndyRef2 (or 3?). And campaingning to end London rule, while you are in goverment in London, sounds like a self-defeating argument to me.

[mormont]

Yeah, I've pointed out before that essentially the notion of the SNP joining a Westminster coalition is a thing only folks south of the border ever talk about. It's a non-starter. Labour are never going to offer it and the SNP are never going to accept it: the very idea would seriously fracture both parties internally. I do not exaggerate when I say that a Tory-Labour coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour coalition.

The SNP might - might - be willing to offer to support a Labour government or Labour/Lib Dem coalition in key votes but their price would be very high and they will never join a coalition.

[Denvek]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, I've pointed out before that essentially the notion of the SNP joining a Westminster coalition is a thing only folks south of the border ever talk about. It's a non-starter. Labour are never going to offer it and the SNP are never going to accept it: the very idea would seriously fracture both parties internally. I do not exaggerate when I say that a Tory-Labour coalition is more likely than an SNP-Labour coalition.

The SNP might - might - be willing to offer to support a Labour government or Labour/Lib Dem coalition in key votes but their price would be very high and they will never join a coalition.

So if an election comes out with a hung parliament and the SNP are the kingmakers, what would they do? Make an explicit choice between Labour/traffic light or Tory/Tory-LD, or abstain and let whichever side is larger run a minority government?

[mormont]

In that scenario, the SNP would do whatever they judge to be in the interests of furthering the cause of independence. They might leverage support in, say, a confidence vote in return for a deal on independence.

What they would not do is negotiate to join a Westminster government of any colour.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

In that scenario, the SNP would do whatever they judge to be in the interests of furthering the cause of independence. They might leverage support in, say, a confidence vote in return for a deal on independence.

What they would not do is negotiate to join a Westminster government of any colour.

Would a deal on independence mean simply allowing indyref2, or would they try and get more?