Andrew 4175 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Just now, Alex said: If only there was some resource you had access to at the moment which could furnish you with that data Yeah, its Rayvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Just now, Andrew said: so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses? Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions. While I totally get your point, these are people who could probably earn more outside of politics if they wanted (see Osborne and Johnson). They should be above it but they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Andrew said: Yeah, its Rayvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 30 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said: Telegraph accusing her of self promotion, completely missing the point. Also Govt. damage limitation inquiry in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17520 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Andrew said: so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses? Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions. Is that sarcasm? Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc? It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Just now, Renton said: Is that sarcasm? Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc? It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. Yup it should be about attracting the best. What we attract now are losers, slackers and kiddie fiddlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30200 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Andrew said: so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses? Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions. Probably not the right place or time for the debate but it's not much in terms of basic salary relative to the importance and responsibilty of the role. The expenses issue still hasn't properly been addressed and by paying them more that could probably be stopped altogether. I appreciate your post is sarcastic but, to me, they should receive more in terms of salary but not get the expenses which would lead to more transparency. The conflict of interests could be partially addressed be not allowing other business interests as previously mentioned. Your attitude is actually beneficial to the status quo though and representative of the way it would be portrayed in the media. Of course MPs themselves are largely to blame for attitudes towards them thanks to things like the expenses scandal. I think we need to ask ourselves if the current system is provided the best people possible to do what are extremely important jobs. One look at Cabinet and politicians in general answers that. Where I work we've got several contractors on our books working for a government agency who earn more than MPs. Now they're good software developers but they're also '10 a penny' in terms of what is available in London (for example) where a lot of them work. It's not really difficult to see why there's a dearth of talented politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4175 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Renton said: Is that sarcasm? Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc? It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. Half and half to be honest, I get the point that increasing the salary would attract better people but they're hardly hard up as it stands. To suggest a solution to something like this is that we should pay people who are already fairly well paid (compared to the majority of the population) more money just...sounds shitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Alex said: Probably not the right place or time for the debate but it's not much in terms of basic salary relative to the importance and responsibilty of the role. The expenses issue still hasn't properly been addressed and by paying them more that could probably be stopped altogether. I appreciate your post is sarcastic but, to me, they should receive more in terms of salary but not get the expenses which would lead to more transparency. The conflict of interests could be partially addressed be not allowing other business interests as previously mentioned. Your attitude is actually beneficial to the status quo though and representative of the way it would be portrayed in the media. Of course MPs themselves are largely to blame for attitudes towards them thanks to things like the expenses scandal. I think we need to ask ourselves if the current system is provided the best people possible to do what are extremely important jobs. One look at Cabinet and politicians in general answers that. Where I work we've got several contractors on our books working for a government agency who earn more than MPs. Now they're good software developers but they're also '10 a penny' in terms of what is available in London (for example) where a lot of them work. It's not really difficult to see why there's a dearth of talented politicians. Publicly subsidized drinking den. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Andrew said: Half and half to be honest, I get the point that increasing the salary would attract better people but they're hardly hard up as it stands. To suggest a solution to something like this is that we should pay people who are already fairly well paid (compared to the majority of the population) more money just...sounds shitty. You're not wrong on the optics element. Highly contentious to go into an election with a view of paying MPs more money. Although if they did it with a 'no moonlighting' clause, that would be more palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 'Optics'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30200 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rayvin said: You're not wrong on the optics element. Highly contentious to go into an election with a view of paying MPs more money. Although if they did it with a 'no moonlighting' clause, that would be more palatable. Once we leave the EU we can go back to 1/5 or 1/6 of a Gill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3953 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 You could pay MPs 500k a year and a hell of a lot of them would still seek more income. They'd also get around any demand to sell rental properties by shifting them to relatives etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16452 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 the Queen is going to the Tower today and to meet the victims. May is apparently going to the hospitals to visit them after coming under pressure. She really needs to fucking resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4175 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 29 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: the Queen is going to the Tower today and to meet the victims.May is apparently going to the hospitals to visit them after coming under pressure. She really needs to fucking resign. Easier for her staff to control the situation inside a hospital than out and about, definitely a response to the shit she got for not talking to anyone though. The express today going with "is this the EUs fault"(no) and a sun reporter has been caught impersonating a victims relative at a hospital trying to get information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16452 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Just spoke with an architect who told me they're working on 2 jobs that are re-cladding high rise. They have been put on hold. 2 mins later got an email through from a cladding supplier 'reassuring' us that the cladding they use isnt the same as what was on the highrise. Panic in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16452 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I said on Twitter yesterday it was May's Katrina. She's like George Bush, flying over looking out of his window. Terrible optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 ''German construction companies have been banned from using plastic-filled cladding, such as Reynobond PE, on towers more than 22 metres high since the 1980s when regulations were brought in to improve fire safety at residential blocks. '' Guardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 17 minutes ago, Happy Face said: I said on Twitter yesterday it was May's Katrina. She's like George Bush, flying over looking out of his window. Terrible optics. It's not a word. It's a meaningless Americanisation. Stop using it or die. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Park Life said: It's not a word. It's a meaningless Americanisation. Stop using it or die. How is it not a word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Rayvin said: How is it not a word... What does it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 It means how the public perceive a particular event or scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rayvin said: It means how the public perceive a particular event or scenario. Do they do that that through field glasses made by Zeiss or sniper rifle sights? Edited June 16, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4948 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 They do it through TV and computer screens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now