Reply With QuoteDear me lets hope the opposition back it and apply the same principles .
Do think we need to pay them more though , when you compare to commercial wages for equally responsible jobs and some in the public sector get far more t6han MP 's .
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The what's in it for me party in all of its glory.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-jobs-dropped
Dear me lets hope the opposition back it and apply the same principles .
Do think we need to pay them more though , when you compare to commercial wages for equally responsible jobs and some in the public sector get far more t6han MP 's .
"Another minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, suggested that around 10-15 hours a week would be reasonable."
Imagine representing over 100,000 people (on average) in Parliament, and then thinking you can spare 10-15 hours a week to do other things. Mind-blowing.
I have no qualms over MPs being paid fairly well given their level of responsibility, but paying them too much would attract the wrong sort of people to the job. Similarly, if we allowed them to be paid to sit on the boards of big corporations, write newspaper columns etc. Oh, wait...
There's nothing more typifies a Tory than greed. One would think £80k a year is more than enough to live on.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I sense an almost Trumpian lust for a populist policy here, but you need to be careful of unintended consequences, which for me, off the top of my head may include:
1 -many MP's not going into parliament because they could earn far more outside it, or would have to entirely sacrifice their careers to become an MP
2 - work being done 'in kind'. ie, not for payment, which would only exacerbate potential corruption
3 - Is it even legal or a good precedent to set to purposefully limit anyones earnings?
4 - What limit do you set this at?
I'm all for scrutiny of MPs, especially of expenses, but I'm not sure I agree here. As long as they declare it properly then I think it's best for constituents to decide.
Winning elections probably typifies them more.
I am not at all surprised by the Tory U turn on this.
After Paterson/Cox they read the polls and the postbags and most were born-again advocates of public service and anti-corruption. Just as they were advocates of 'all in it together' rule observance and respect for the public after Partygate.
But a few weeks later, after a Ukraine crisis that distracted the press and public (remember the buried Sue Gray report?) they are reverting to type. Letters of no confidence in BoJo being recalled and nice little earners lined up again.
Not that the Labour and Lib Dem parties are clean on this - just not as deep in the effluent!
In all seriousness though, do you not see how if this work is not properly accounted for and registered and paid for, then it could go under the radar and actually increase corruption?
Personally, I do engage with my MP's. I'm not an avid letter writer, but I will probably be in touch with them once or twice over the course of an election cycle, and some are better than others at responding and helping. If someone was no help but they had a second income I would be pissed off. If they were helpful and had a second income, I wouldnt care.
You are forgetting that constituents are stupid and MPs are devious. People that earn that kind of money usually have enough responsibility and such an all consuming role that they simply don't have time for any other work. I have never seen a backbench MP look burnt out, I am not convinced their 80k job takes more than about 15 hours a week. Once you start adding committee chair duties or ministerial duties there is a convo to be had but these people have teams of people working for them.
I think to set rules you probably need a full ban otherwise there will always be inconsistencies. Am I worried that the house loses talent? Name some and I will let you know...!
Why do you think unless they get found out to be a perv or a psycho they tend to stay in the job for life? Because it's a cushy number.
Yep, Cox will probably be off to Russia to help prepare Putin's defence for the Hague soon.
It's all fluff (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
Compared to the serious business of endemic corruption, serial lying, fawning to mass murderers, and posing as a parody Churchill.
Glad the honourable member for the 18th century has maintained a sense of proportion!
Raab
It's like inviting Adolf Hitler to a party and Rudolf Hess turns up
Posting Permissions