UK Politics: who's in charge today?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

"Affording the time necessary" isn't the problem here in the states and I can't imagine it's the problem in the UK either.

[Which Tyler]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

That's a very big "if' though, that simply isn't held up by reality.

 

Which is the ppoint. People are complaining that the problem is that the rich are the ones who can't afford the loss of earnings

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

"Affording the time necessary" isn't the problem here in the states and I can't imagine it's the problem in the UK either.

How much time do average MPs spend in Parliament… being MPs?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

mormont is arguably more in line with Maddison (just to draw our Florida DMC back into the thread). Going into politics should be a calling a service to the people and the country. 

If you set the monetary rewards too high, you (run the risk to) attract the wrong folks, with let's say more impure motives. Those who choose that career, because it pays well. If you disincentify the job for people, who just want to earn well, they stay with their fucking Hedgefunds or Goldman Sucks. 

Alas, the revolving door. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

That's a very big "if' though, that simply isn't held up by reality.

 

Which is the ppoint. People are complaining that the problem is that the rich are the ones who can't afford the loss of earnings

Is being an MP a part time or a full time position?  Can the average person afford unpaid time off of work to be an MP?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

mormont is arguably more in line with Maddison (just to draw our Florida DMC back into the thread). Going into politics should be a calling a service to the people and the country. 

If you set the monetary rewards too high, you (run the risk to) attract the wrong folks, with let's say more impure motives. Those who choose that career, because it pays well. If you disincentify the job for people, who just want to earn well, they stay with their fucking Hedgefunds or Goldman Sucks. 

Alas, the revolving door. 

And if the monetary reward is too low can people afford time off from work to be legislators?

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How much time do average MPs spend in Parliament… being MPs?

I don't know, but I know a salary of 84k pounds means their families probably aren't living off welfare.  In the US, the aspect of the job that is so unappealing to the non-wealthy (and, frankly, even the wealthy) is that you have to spend the majority of your time asking people for money.  Granted, that is much less of a problem in the UK.

[Zorral]

I am basing my interpretation on Edmund Burke's 18th C writings on political economics, as well as the later Walter Bagehot, whom, of course, neither Hamilton nor Madison would have known, but they would certainly have the thinking of Burke.

But, like everyone then and since, nobody seems to quite agree on interpretations, since that how it is with thinking on money coupled with money and power, particularly among 'experts' -- and cannot be more expert than a political economist!  Look at those libertarian political economy think tanks!

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But, like everyone then and since, nobody seems to quite agree on interpretations, since that how it is with thinking on money coupled with money and power, particularly among 'experts' -- and cannot be more expert than a political economist!

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, it's just not really relevant to why I mentioned their views on representation/public service in the Federalist in the context of this discussion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And if the monetary reward is too low can people afford time off from work to be legislators?

Ah, the pay peanuts you get monkeys argument.

Yeah, but the pay is actually very decent with the expenses on top. At least if you aim to have people there, whose everyday life is not totally detached from woes of the average voter.

[Derfel Cadarn]

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is being an MP a part time or a full time position?  Can the average person afford unpaid time off of work to be an MP?

When they’re not in parliament they’re meant to be helping their constituents 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

Its the very wealthy that for some reason can't afford to be an MP.  Most of the rest of us have to live on under £40K.  I have no idea how anyone could possibly survive on just making £80k + expenses.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Derfel Cadarn said:

When they’re not in parliament they’re meant to be helping their constituents 

So, a full time job.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, a full time job.

yes its a full time job.  but one in which they can hire family and friends to help them with that full time Job and that doesn't come out of their wages.  remember most people on under £40k are also working full time jobs.  and don't get their London accommodation or travel paid for.

 

also fund raising is not really that much of a thing here, since there are laws as to how much can be spent campaigning.  

Unless its fund raising to get your flat decorated with gold wallpaper or something.  I guess that takes some efforts and a peerage or something.

[Zorral]

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2022/10/strong-and-stable.html#comments

Quote

 

.... Reader: if they select Clownshoes Churchill again, the Conservative Party is dead. Arguably it's a dead party walking anyway, but that'd be an classic symptom of denial-of-reality.

Russ Jones, author of This Decade in Tory (and the excellent "this week in Tory" tweet stream: follow him at @RussinCheshire) has an interesting take today on what's going on. Like all major parties in a first past the post electoral system, the Conservatives are a coalition of bickering in-groups. But the membership of these groups differ from, say, the US Republican party's coalition in-groups. Loosely speaking, the Republicans are the Party of Mammon in coalition with the Christian Dominionists (who are also White Supremacists), along with a weird, lumpen bolt-on called MAGA—the AR-15s and rolling coal faction, who feel economically aggrieved and want to burn down everyone and everything they hate. In contrast, Russ enumerates the Conservatives' five factions thuswise:

• One Nation Conservatives (eg. Ken Clark), the traditional faction of stable national unity government, now reduced to a rump (and arguably more at home with the Liberal Democrats, or even the Labour right wing)

• Xenophobic English nationalists, essentially UKIP, mad about borders, immigrants, and sovereignty (their xenophobia subsumes racism and extends to anyone who isn't an identarian English person—they're anti-Scottish, anti-Welsh, anti-Irish, anti-European, but happy to welcome Hindutva types and the likes of Kemi Badenoch into the fold as long as they're xenophobic enough)

• Swivel-eyed Libertarians (see: Liz Truss, Kwasi Kwarteng, the 55 Tufton Street mob)

• Populist bullshitters who'll do anything to get power and fame: Johnson, Dorries

• Machine politicians who are there for the power, because they think they're destined to rule (equivalent to the US Republicans' Mammonites) like Gove and May

Loosely: this coalition held under Thatcher, but fractured under John Major in 1994-ish (Major refused to pander to the xenophobe wing of the party). Since then we've had four PMs: Cameron, May, Johnson, and Truss. Cameron stuck it to the populists (note what Boris was doing during Cameron's term as PM?), May flew her xenophobe flag proudly but dumped on the One Nation Tories and the Libertarians, Johnson was a Bullshitter who told everyone else he was their best buddy while he picked their pockets, and Truss was a Libertarian who got hauled out of office raving in a straitjacket.

And each faction has now given the other factions good cause to mistrust them.

(Weird exception in Scotland, where Politics is Different. The Scottish Conservative party is in large part the rump of the former Unionist Party, which merged with the tories in the 1950s/1960s. They're obsessed with opposition to Scottish independence. Scottish Labour is obsessed with opposition to the SNP, who are a better Labour Party-of-government than Labour these days, and who are also in favour of independence, so Scottish Labour is Against That Sort Of Thing. Result: we are seeing Conservative/Labour coalitions springing up at city council level, just to keep the SNP out. I suspect if Scotland eventually gains independence, Labour and the Conservatives in Scotland might eventually merge—although it's impossible to predict without knowing what sort of electoral system the new nation ends up with.)

Anyway, back to Brexit ...  ....

 

 

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As someone who earns considerably less than that of an MP I have never been seriously tempted to become one.  I can honestly say the reason is not because doing so would mean being paid a vast amount more either.

 

the main reasons I would never become one is I could not deal with the open hostility and disrespect within the house of commons.  the other big reason I don't feel that I could sever my constituents well.  although that said I also believe I could serve them much better than my local MP does.  I don't like taking on a job if I don't feel I could do a good job.

 

I was tempted to stand a couple of years ago.  I thought about it.  I figured if I cleaned up my facebook and frothed at the mouth more I might be able to stand under Nige's Brexit party flag and possibly take enough votes away for my Local MP that his seat becomes slightly less than very safe.   - I'd not have a hope in hell of winning so would not have to follow though.  I can say it was tempting.  But it was never a serious consideration.  

 

 

 

In actual UK politics news.....

 

the General election Partition is now on 834,003 signatures

so thats gone up 200K + since Truss resigned

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/619781

[Derfel Cadarn]

Other thing MP’s get (in addition to expenses, and I believe that includes travel) is subsided meals and alcohol within the numerous Houses of Parliament bars and restaurants.

Plusnthe bribes from big pharma, big tobacco, fossil fuel companies, far right American interests, Russia…

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Personally, I doubt that either of us knows the other's country particularly well - hence I went for articles comparing as close to like-for-like as I could find; rather than opining.

As for average earnings of a HS grad being well below "living comfortably" - US is just like the UK then.

Average salary for a nurse, USA (taking out the outliers) ranges from $60,540 in S Dakota to $98,630 in Oregon. Average salary for a teacher, USA (taking out the outliers) ranges from $47,681 in W Virginia to $82,282 in New York.
Average salary for a nurse, UK (whole) is £25,896. Average salary for a teacher, UK (whole) is £31,121.

Agreed, we can only guess. And fyi, depending on where they live a huge number of college grads are also living well below the line the articles you linked suggested. Things aren't exactly great here right now either. I must admit though I'm surprised at the pay rates you've cited for teachers and nurses. Those seem absurdly low, and I'm assuming that's pre-tax. 

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Paying politicians more is the opposite of a solution.

TBF, when has offering less money attracted better candidates in any field? 

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

also fund raising is not really that much of a thing here, since there are laws as to how much can be spent campaigning.  

On a quick google I saw that in the 2017 general election all parties and campaigns spent about a combined 41.6 million pounds.  Ah, if only.  Not only are the spending limits a fundamental difference, but also the campaigns are much shorter, whereas in the US it is essentially a perpetual campaign for all officeholders.

[john]

4 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Who writes the exam?

We could always put it out to tender. I’m sure the process would be fair and above board.