UK Politics: who's in charge today?

[Derfel Cadarn]

Looks like Mordaunt is losing votes to Sunak

[john]

If only there’d been some way she could have predicted that!

[Pebble thats Stubby]

There is a Re-join march happening right now in London.  I could not go this time - I went to the previous 2nd Ref Marches.

 

They are not getting the slightest mention on the news.

[Luzifer's right hand]

38 minutes ago, john said:

There’s other ways to get high value candidates. Make them take exams like civil servants do.

Going to have a little tea party this afternoon with an Italian and two Poles and try and contain my embarrassment over the absolute state of my country’s politics.

Just mock us we are on our third chancellor since the last election and we also voted in late 2019 and only formed a goverment in 2020!

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, john said:

There’s other ways to get high value candidates. Make them take exams like civil servants do.

Who writes the exam?

[DMC]

Members of Congress make $174k a year, with the leadership making a bit more.  That sounds about right to me.  I get where Ty is coming from - the people running for Congress are increasingly already disproportionately wealthy (the median member is a millionaire).  But that's due to the cost of campaigns - which also is prohibitive in terms of the amount of time a MC has to spend raising money.  That's the problem, not their salary.

Moreover, being a member of Congress is a pretty good line on a resume that can enable someone to make a lot more money afterwards.  Even if the revolving door was mitigated, which of course it absolutely should, there are plenty of ways to drastically increase your earning potential after or in between your political career simply based on being a former MC (and, presumably a former MP).  Further, financial reports show that most MCs make a tons of supplementary income while in office, usually due to outside investments (which is a whole other argument), with hundreds making more money there than their actual paycheck.

And as mormont said, we should not be looking for people that are solely seeking to maximize their earning potential anyway.  The Federalist may have been ironically naive with Madison and Hamilton emphasizing the "virtue" of officeholders rather than their self-interest - while coterminously arguing the government should be structured based on competing self-interests.  However, seeking office should of course still be about civil service, not competing with the salaries seen in the private sector.

In that vein, it's interesting to look at the history of congressional salaries.  Until the 1850s, MCs only made the equivalent of about $30-50k a year - and it was mostly on a per diem basis (meaning they weren't paid when Congress wasn't in session).  At the inception of Congress, members were paid $6 a day, which even back then wasn't much.  

Anyway, I don't know what the equivalent of ~ $175k a year is - this three-to-one talk doesn't make much sense to me considering the exchange rate - but if someone refuses to run for office because that salary is too low, I don't want them in office in the first place.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Accordong to the BBC, ‘sources’ are saying Johnson already has met the 100 backer requirement. Really, or just his supporters tryong to panic the undecided onto jumping onto the wagon.

If it’s true, he’ll be PM, as I dont see the party membership voting for Sunak.

Edit: Or will they just tell the membership to fuck off back to the wireless to listen to The Archers? Is there any downside to that? It’s not like the 180k coffin-dodgers will vote Labour. Better to piss off the core support than the whole nation

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Oh please, make it happen.

Boorish, Boorish, Boorish. The country is sorta pissed at them anyway, and there are apparently still people out there, who like Boorish for one reason or another. 

Get the Tories done. Do it Boorish.

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Unstated in this article is the influence extreme right fringe parties have had on the mainstream right. In the US you have the tea partiers and freedom caucus clowns that have come to dominate the Republican Party. That worked because they figured out how to work in the two party system.

The UK version of this is UKIP rhetoric pulling the Tories down the same road. 

It's in there -- but doesn't need to be bashed on since the average WaPo reader knows this -- it's written about in every issue every day. And not only there.  Those who need to be informed only read -- well, WATCH -- the sites that propagate conspiracy and other fascist policies.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Interestingly, if Johnson gets voted in by the members, the majority of the MP’s will be against him, meaning he’ll need to offer a good position to Sunak. Who may refuse. 
In theory those who want Sunak (maybe 70%?) could write letters of no confidence to Brady (who surely couldnt ignore a big rebellion), and coukd kick him.

Meaning another contest for leader, which Johnson couldnt stand in.

At the least, Labour coukd argue Johnson doeant have the support of parliament.

I think Johnson would need to hold a GE aooner than later to get the MP’s in line (however many remain)

[Zorral]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Federalist may have been ironically naive with Madison and Hamilton emphasizing the "virtue" of officeholders

"Virtue" in that context back then had a rather different meaning: it meant someone who necessarily was prosperous and a community leader/power already -- not necessarily patient, generous, honest, hard working, etc.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Maybe Labour learnt and the British electorate learnt their lesson and will actually get that overdue electoral reform done.

[DMC]

Just now, Zorral said:

"Virtue" in that context back then had a rather different meaning: it meant someone who necessarily was prosperous and a community leader/power already

Madison and Hamilton meant it was someone we could trust to put the public interest over their own.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

"Virtue" in that context back then had a rather different meaning: it meant someone who necessarily was prosperous and a community leader/power already -- not necessarily patient, generous, honest, hard working, etc.

I am sure DMC as Pol-Sci guy is aware of that - even if he is from Florida 

[Zorral]

Just now, DMC said:

Madison and Hamilton meant it was someone we could trust to put the public interest over their own.

Yes, because they were already well-off, among other things.  They could be counted on not to go veering off into challenging the powers that actually ran things, like Hamilton's fil, who owned so much, including shipping and financial interests.  In those days one could not even start a company unless one was already rich and established -- it was illegal.  Banks were also illegal for the colonists, of course, though by the Federalist Papers they were no longer colonists.  One of the first things Hamilton and Morris did during the war was get a bank going.

[DMC]

Just now, Zorral said:

Yes, because they were already well-off, among other things.

I'm aware.

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Madison and Hamilton meant it was someone we could trust to put the public interest over their own.

If I put the over/under at 25% of candidates that primarily care about the public interest above all else, which side would you bet?

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If I put the over/under at 25% of candidates that primarily care about the public interest above all else, which side would you bet?

Under.  That's why I said they were ironically naive.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Is this the UK Politics thread or the US Ancient* history politics thread?

 

 

*Ancient history as per US standards?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Paying politicians more is the opposite of a solution.

Why?  If only the rich can afford the time necessary for holding political office… how is that an improvement?