Forum menu
?...could it be just what UK politics needs?
Election geeks have posited half-a-dozen or more governing permutations in the event that Ukip makes big gains next May. Among the more obvious are these: A Labour majority, facilitated by Ukip gains from the Conservatives (Cameron’s bedtime with Farage and reveille with Miliband); a Conservative majority in the event that Ukip take from both parties and the LibDems are erased; a repeat of the current Conservative-Lib Dem coalition; or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, in the event that the Lib Dems retain a sufficient number of seats to help either party to an overall majority.But the possibilities do not end here. Also possible could be a minority government formed by either of the big parties, which could be the result if – say – the Lib Dems have lost the appetite for governing or have too few seats to make up a coalition alone. A ‘rainbow’ coalition, with Labour linking up with the Lib Dems and/or the Greens and even, maybe, the Scottish Nationalists. Or – perhaps the most obvious, and desirable, to certain Conservatives, if Ukip gains more than a dozen or so seats – a Tory-Ukip coalition (or some less formal ‘understanding’).
What no one has mentioned, however, is a German solution – a ‘grand coalition’ of Conservative and Labour that leaves the fringe parties on the fringe and governs from the centre – which is, after all, the territory that a majority of voters inhabit.
It has a certain morbid fascination, although Im sure the idea will have binners spluttering into his Greggs Breakfast Pasty at the thought...but bear the author out, as her parting shot could just be what the left perhaps needs: clear political water to form a new party in.
Such an eventuality could, of course, trigger defections among right-wing Tories and left-wing Labourites. But this might be no bad thing, giving the UK a wider party political spectrum and parties less divided against themselves. That really would be breaking the mould.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/a-lab-con-coalition-its-not-as-crazy-as-you-think/
If the argument from the left in here has mainly been that labour is too centrist and not left [i]enough[/i] (toryish corporate toadying, steady-as-she-goes austerity and approach to deficit etc) then such a move would encourage someone on the left for a new political movement to coalesce around.
Of course it rather assumes that UKIP continue to be wholly a "right of tory party option" and stop treading on Labour toes and appeal too much to labour core voters.
May not be a bad thing at all. I'm sure there are plenty of his more foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic backbenchers that Dave wouldn't be too bothered to see the back of. The ones who hate him for all this namby pamby liberal stuff like gay marriage, and want to bring back hanging. So if he could tell them all to **** off to UKIP then, and move to a centrist ground with labour. At the end of the day, the two parties are essentially indistinguishable from each other on most major policy issues anyway.
In an ideal world it'd temper the Tory's instinctive impulse to punish the poor for being poor, and Labours inclination to spaff loads of money we don't have on chucking money at any perceived problem
It'll never happen though. They're just too tribal. And would much rather spend their time calling each other names
Germany had that effective combination and I don't think it did too much harm.
Think realistically it'd need LibDem, UKIP and SNP to have stolen enough between them from both sides, that Con or Lab would need probably all 3 to gain a very marginal Con or Lab led coalition margin. That key could be UKIP stealing from Labour.
And judging by how much the BBC wants UKIP to win, that is a distinct possible combination.
I can't see a formal coalition between Labour and Tory, too risky for both. Its much more likely one or the other would form a minority government in coalition with the other parties and stumble along for a bit (18 months ?) before there was another general election.
I've always thought we might be better served by people whose main priority was to run the country well as opposed to getting/staying elected next time round.
Or we could just ask ze Germans to run the country for us.
We would need PR for that to happen - not the lab tory coalition the splintering of the parties
We would need a less adversarial style of politics for that to happen as well IMHO. It would either rip itself apart over a principle issue or be so bland/middle of the road it did nothing.
it rather assumes that UKIP continue to be wholly a "right of tory party option" and stop treading on Labour toes and appeal too much to labour core voters.
They are made up of folk to right wing /xenophobic/racist for the Tory party.
They are pretty good at making noise about populist stuff - low taxes. But their basic mantra is a small state and that wont appeal. I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites ;my view is somewhat weak.
FWIW it is only 15% of UKIP voters who voted labour last time and I would imagine the majority of those are not died in the wool labour voters but floating voters.
Presumably after the GE Boris will be the new tory leader
In an ideal world it'd temper the Tory's instinctive impulse to punish the poor for being poor, and Labours inclination to spaff loads of money we don't have on chucking money at any perceived problem
I've agreed with a lot you've written recently, binners, but hadn't realised just how closely your political thoughts coincided with mine. I think you've just summed up in a single sentence the issue "right wingers" have with Labour, and the main issue moderate liberals have with the Tories.
Personally I'm a big fan of consensual politics, and as mentioned there's not that much between them - rather that than any coalition involving UKIP with their injection of crazy ideas - but also as mentioned I can't see it happening for strategic party reasons, because they're just too in love with the current system of shouting at each other.
Presumably after the GE Boris will be the new tory leader
I hope so. It'll cast them into the electoral wildeness with that buffoon is at the helm. I'm sure the Tory electoral machine thanked him for his [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29523009 ]stirling contribution in Clacton[/url]
I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites
😆
FWIW it is only 15% of UKIP voters who voted labour last time and I would imagine the majority of those are not died in the wool labour voters but floating voters.
Surely not all that many floating voters voted Labour last time - they polled lower share of the vote in the constituencies I've looked at than in '83 and '87. No, I think you'll find that if 15% of their vote comes from people who voted Labour in 2010, then a significant number of those have always voted Labour before. I could do you a graph to prove it if you like...
I hope so. It'll cast them into the electoral wildeness with that buffoon is at the helm.
I wouldn't be so confident that Labour could win a second term, nor that Boris would result in the party being as unpopular as you expect (for a start I'd imagine he appeals quite well to the voters they need to attract). Hence be careful what you wish for - the Torys losing next time could result in Boris as PM 😯
Oh and I note you describe him as a buffoon - well that's just what he wants his opponents to think of him. I'm fairly sure that unlike JC it is mostly an act.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
Bumbling incompetent buffon with racist tendencies whose libido is as loose as his memory.
There is nothing to respect about this man - ignoring his politics entirely in this view.
EDIT:
I'm fairly sure that unlike JC it is mostly an act.
I dont think it is an act personally. i think he is actually like that but he is not an actual idiot. IMHO he is a very clever and astute person who is not very good with words at times and struggles to remember basic details or express himself well. Our very own George W bush basically and not something i would want from a world leader and not from someone representing the country on a world stage.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
and yet, Rob Ford, continues to enjoy a majority in Toronto....
I'm not going to disagree with your opinion of Boris (apart from the buffoon bit - see above), but plenty of people have voted for him in recent elections.
aracer - I think the nightmare scenario would be Dave being jettisoned after failing to win a majority. Boris being crowned. He'd gleefully move waaaaaay to the right of Dave (as behind his bumbling buffoon shtick, thats where his true political instincts lie), and then rely on UKIP to prop up a narrow majority, as they'd be indistinguishable on most policies anyway.
Bozza as PM, with Nige as deputy. Can you imagine? If that happens, I'll be leaving the country
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
Bozza as PM, with Nige as deputy. Can you imagine?
Well it is at least the morning, so I have time to get rid of that image before having nightmares tonight.
Ford has never been re elected as Mayor and indeed he has stood down from the vote which takes place this month.
yes he remained popular with some voters so the point is still a valid one.
As for the voting bit - Hitler won lots of votes as well...perhaps we need to vet candidates before we let them stand .......or voters before they vote
Yours Mao
perhaps we need to vet candidates before we let them stand .......or voters before they vote
I could think of other leaders who that would appeal to - oh look you've already mentioned one 😉
Boris has charisma and is popular with many
but he only scraped past (-3%) a geriatric lame ken livingston that even the Guardian had turned against at the last mayoral election
That was with the backing of pretty much every national and all the free london newspapers at the time, and of course the support of the City
his loyalty to big business means as much of a populist fuss he kicks up about the EU, theres no way hed leave
Hitler won lots of votes as well
For pity's sake man! its only 9:35 on a Monday. This thread was supposed to last the whole family at least 6 hours of work time and you've invoked Godwin's law already.
So what's going to happen within Labour once this process is under way? They will lose the support of their old power base, the working class.
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
the trades' union would have an opportunity to fund a party that would do what it really wanted for a change...
[s]The trade unions[/s] Big business and private millionairre non dom hedge funder private equity holders funding [s]'Labour'[/s]* 'Tories' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the[s]Tories[/s] Unions
FTFY
Why is Labour in ""?
They will lose the support of their old power base, the working class.
[i]q.v.[/i] binners [i]et al.[/i]
The support might have already been leaking away.
The working classes only vote on X Factor. Everybody knows that.
But even the public service professional core support of 'Labour' who have been the bedrock of the Blair/Brown/Miliband ethos of the party wouldn't put up with a Lab/Tory coalition. for that reason I think it is a non-starter.
I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites
I think the reality is we don't, as a population, vote [i]for [/i]new governments we vote against the old one. Democracy is a gong show.
The support might already been leaking away.
The issue if they offer nothing to get them to vote for them.
To miss quote george galloway it is two cheeks of the same arse offering basically the same thing
There is some merit in a Westminister elite in that they all have the same solutions for the same problems with only slightly different flavours.
^^ and if they were seen simply as a Westminster elite then that might persuade people that they were wrong to think the solutions to their problems could be provided by voting for the opposition. The Westminster elite would be seen as the opposition.
I don't see what's so good about consensus politics - it just means opaque compromises cut by unnatural partners...
Boris being crowned. He'd gleefully move waaaaaay to the right of Dave (as behind his bumbling buffoon shtick, thats where his true political instincts lie),
Is that really true though? He's not going to do anything radical around the EU or economically. So socially...?
Westminister elite
This is a bit more catchy than career politician and also helps to create the impression that the country is run by London when MPs are in fact elected nationally.
Funny the thread is already diverted and speaking of Boris.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
and yet, Rob Ford, continues to enjoy a majority in Toronto....
And people voted Boris mayor of London.
A UKIP voter in Clacton said he'd voted for the UKIP candidate because the Tory MP they'd had for years had been useless 🙄 So, realistically, anything could happen.
Jam I think we all know that Parliament sits in Westminster and has MPs drawn from all part of the country.
Given this, what is your point?
For example there solution for the North is to spunk cash on HS2 to make it faster for us to get to london rather than make it easier for us to get to places in the North. I have been twice so this change will be less than life changing personally.
The working classes only vote on X Factor. Everybody knows that.
I see a workable format for the pre-election TV debates here... Someone phone ITV!
JY my point is the use of the term "Westminster elite" has two subliminal messages, first the geographic one which plays on people's belief that the country is run from London for the benefit of London and secondly that its run by an "elite". To rise to a cabinet/shadow cabinet office you have to be successful - so you are immediately part of an elite group, almost by definition, you not some bloke/woman from down the pub.
first the geographic one which plays on people's belief that the country is run from London for the benefit of London and secondly that its run by an "elite".
I don't think you'd get many people outside the South East arguing against the geographic point, to be honest. But the word 'elite isn't helpful'. I'd use 'cabal'. Which is what it is.
And that isn't just a pop at the Tories and the present Eton mafia. Labour are probably worse, with their whole 'jobs for the boys' philosophy. As the PCC thread the other day showed, the nepotism in Labour party politics in northern cities, for example, is absolutely shameless.
But again its this that just reinforces the idea that they're all as bad as each other, and the whole political system is broken. As Nigel gleefully points out every other sentence. Because he knows it resonates with a totally disillusioned electorate.
TBH something has to be done. I'm sick of us bending over to Europe/what un-checked migration will do to our country. That doesn't mean I will vote for UKIP but it just shows people are starting to worry.
Lest we forget - effective government requires strong opposition. A L/T coalition,however tempting to some, would fall at this basic hurdle.
@ Jam they are not subliminal they are exactly what the words mean and what the claim is.
Feel free to refute it.
You can use cabal if you like. Its remote and distant from most of the country, few, if any, have had "proper" jobs and they do not live in the real world - Is not aimed at any party in particular to be clear.
@ THM Very good point.
One could argue we have had poor oppositions in the past but you are correct what could counter balance or hold them to account - 12 Lib dems , 2 UKIPer and a green MP?
Our parliament is in London for traditional reasons and long may that continue. It's not worth the cost of moving it to create a situation like in Australia (Canbera) or US (Washington) for example as people would frankly complain as much about the government if it where in Birmingham, Manchester of Liverpool. London and the South East "pay the bills", the taxes (income, employer, corporate, vat and stamp duty) raised there are disproportionately high per head and subsidise the rest of the country. IMO that's normal foe a capital city and the surrounding region, what I have little time for a whinging that Westminster manages the country for the benefit of the South as actually the opposite is true.
My view re elite is as above, the top of the political system is by definition an elite as they are the best that party has to offer. You are in a footballing elite if you play for ManU for example as it's not a career in reality open to anyone.
Business people generally hate real politics (certainly in the UK), it simply isn't of interest and most wouldn't take the pay cut required. Hence political leaders tend to be career politicians whether they are Salmond, Clegg, Cameron, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Balls etc etc
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
Maybe, maybe not. It's been a long time since Labour offered the unions anything more substantial than a few crumbs from the top table. That's why I signed a form to tell my union that they can't use my fees to fund the Labour party.
jambalaya - Member
My view re elite is as above, the top of the political system is by definition an elite as they are the best that party has to offer
Bless.
I don't think anyone is suggesting moving parliament. You can keep the ****s! 😉 What I'm saying is the present arrangement has created the economy we have now, where London is, to all intents and purposes, an Independent City State, and economic decisions that can effect the rest of the countries economy pretty negatively are taken in London's interests pretty much exclusively
Lest we forget - effective government requires strong opposition.
So how do they manage in Germany? Presumably the government is totally ineffective and the country is going down the pan?
I was at a meeting early this morning to discuss investment in Africa. Combination of business folk, MPs and civil servants. The host (an ex-MP) summed things up well when trying to stimulate a debate:
Businessmen like to under-promise and over-deliver
Politicians over-promise and under-deliver
Quite.
@ Jam
Re the first point remind you agree it is happening you just dont care.
Re elite - the problem is football players are there because they are talented and the best. They are not there because they went to the best schools, because their folks were MPs or because of who they know.
Secondly MP's are there to represent the people they serve. When you draw them from a narrow social strata you get an elite.
Business people generally hate real politics (certainly in the UK), it simply isn't of interest and most wouldn't take the pay cut required.
you are really keeping it real and so street there with folk who wont take a pay cut to x 3 the average wage - another one of your comments that makes me think this is satire/trolling
We dont need more rich people in parliament nor PPE students, nor media, PR nor law. We need more plumbers, nurses, shop workers, cleaners etc you know the stuff most of us do and who live like most of us do.
With all due to respect to dave , and GO and Milliband and Clegg they have lived a life unlike 99% of the people they serve. they dont get it and it is not their fault
We also need more women and BME.
Businessmen like to under-promise and over-deliver
Politicians over-promise and under-deliver
Yes, that was my first thought when reading about Tesco's profits. 🙄
What I thought as I watched the economy go belly up and when I watched G4S over deliver at the Olympics and when I saw SERCO over deliver on prison contracts ...oh my mistake that was just over claim
Etc
Re elite - the problem is football players are there because they are talented and the best. They are not there because they went to the best schools, because their folks were MPs or because of who they know.
Labour party ?
you are really keeping it real and so street there with folk who wont take a pay cut to x 3 the average wage
Perfect example of how little real information / relevance there is in the "average wage" statistic. Why be an MP on £65k when you can be head of the council on £100+ (and not face an election every 5 years) or head of the PCC as we discussed on the other thread for the same ? That's before you start looking at private sector jobs.
If you are interested in a career Politics PPE is an excellent degree, it's not surprising its well represented.
[i]So how do they manage in Germany? [/i]
I don't think the two systems bear much comparison TBH the Germans have a long tradition of cooperation that goes back to the early days of the Holy Roman Empire.
So they can manage effective government without a strong opposition, and THM's statement isn't actually a universal truism, just something which is part of the status quo here?
Labour party ?
Is not aimed at any party in particular to be clear.
Apply this to all my posts the only real difference is the Tories draw more from the landed gentry.
Perfect example of how little real information / relevance there is in the "average wage" statistic
WTF are you on about and why is the "average Wage " in ""?
The average wage is the average wage - its pretty real information and relevant as the MP's salary is above it
Thanks for addressing the issue I raised about us needing more "real" people and just doing a really imprecise attack on "average wages".
I do not even know what your point is
If you are interested in a career Politics PPE is an excellent degree,
Aye there is no way to improve on our current system is there and it has served us admirably well.
I would rather have more alan Johnson or dave CMD davis than another Oxbridge PPE candidate personally.
FWIW if you wont be a politician because it is not personally financially rewarding enough for you at that salary then I am delighted we remove the greedy from standing. Its public service after all and paid better than most other public servant jobs. If you are doing it for personal wealth then you are self serving rather than public serving
JY - average wage - mean, mode, median and all that stuff. Also average includes a lot of part time work and a mix over the whole working age range (lots of kids on low wages, lots of soon-to-be pensioners on low wages). It's a really poor stat. The average household income for those with kids is £65k btw. My point is those business people you want as MPs make a lot more money than MPs.
Just because you pick a job with reference to it's salary doesn't make you greedy. Being an MP is a total PITA in my view, being in the cabinet I can imagine is interesting but the rest of it is pretty mundane and dreadfully anti-social in terms of hours / commitments etc
It's a really poor stat
Yes facts you dont like often are
average household income
Is not relevant when discussing an individual salary for one job. It is , by any standards, a very well paid job.
FWIW
The top decile of single adults earn a median income of £60,500,
My point is those business people you want as MPs make a lot more money than MPs.
Do we speak the same language? Do you read my posts? that is as daft as me claiming you support the Palestinian cause. Is this more of your satire/trolling?
what im my posts makes you think I want more business people 😯
Was this not clear enough for you?
FWIW if you wont be a politician because it is not personally financially rewarding enough for you at that salary then I am delighted we remove the greedy from standing. Its public service after all and paid better than most other public servant jobs. If you are doing it for personal wealth then you are self serving rather than public serving
I dont think we need more "business leaders" as most folk are not "business leaders"
I am out as we get nowhere when we "debate"
As an aside JY Group 4 where pushed into bidding on the Olympics, they told the government/organizing committee the format was unworkable (recruit, vet, train workforce months in advance for a 3 week potential assignment in the future)
Not trolling really. I was answering various comments around MPs not being representative. Our MPs are not well paid, FWIW they should be paid double or treble and there be less of them and zero expenses and no other outside employment (France and German MPs make much more)
I have no idea what world one lives in when you claim a top 10% wage is "not well paid".
Have a look at how much more it is than average wages of the folk they represent.
Lollipop ladies £3,187 average p/a (+4.9% yearly change)
Theme park attendants £6,011 (-10.9%)
Bar staff £7,317 (-1.0%)
Playworkers £7,400 (-3.8%)
Waiters & waitresses ( £7,654 +8.3%)
Cleaners £8,067 (+1.9%)
Florists £8,960 (-6.0%)
Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Fitness instructors £10,378 (-8.4%)
Shopworkers £11,174 (+0.3%)
Cooks £11,346 (-7.4%)
Nursery nurses £11,163 (-0.4%)
Beauticians £12,418 (+5.3%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Receptionists £12,595 (+1.8%)
Care workers £12,804 (+0.9%)
Childminders £12,949 (+2.3%)
Telephonists £14,032 (+1.5%)
Tailors & Dressmakers £14,482 (-23.5%)
Caretakers £16,114 (+3.9%)
Secretaries £16,384 (+1.1%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Customer service £16,525 (+9.5%)
Undertakers £16,526 (0%)
Packers £16,820 (-0.4%)
Tele sales £17,362 (-1.1%)
Chefs £17,391 (+0.3%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Street cleaners £17,616 (-3.8%)
Butchers £17,681 (+1.2%)
Hospital porters £17,748 (+5.8%)
Farm workers £17,925 (+4.9)
Traffic wardens £18,065 (-4.2%)
Travel agents £18,344 (+10.7%)
Van drivers £18,744 (+2.9%)
Tyre & exhaust fitters £18,888 (-4.2%)
Bank clerks £19,908 (+9.3%)
Youth & Community workers £20,240 (+2.6%)
Civil servants £20,330 +1.2%
Council administrators £20,351 (+2.9%)
Vicars £20,568 (-3.6%)
Security guards £20,841 (+2.2%)
Plasterers £21,155 (+0.1%)
Lab technicians £21,168 (+0.2%)
Fork lift drivers £21,444 (+0.3%)
Musicians £21,492 (+6.8%)
Roofers £21,921 (-1.5%)
Bricklayers £22,476 (-7.0%)
Painters £22,700 (+1.9%)
Ambulance staff £22,854 (+5.6%)
Housing officers £23,001 (-0.6%)
Bus & coach drivers £23,095 (+3.0%)
Posties & messengers £23,178 (+17.5%)
Librarians £23,940 (-0.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Photographers £24,242 (-4.8%)
Farmers £24,520 (+5.5%)
Estate agents £24,783 (-8.2%)
Publicans £25,222 (+10.7%)
Mechanics £25,238 (-0.7%)
Lorry drivers £25,602 (+1.4%)
Nurses £26,158 (+0.65)
Prison officers £26,616 (+2.6%)
Welders £26,735 (-1.6%)
Printers £26,833 (+2.7%)
Speech therapists £27,470 (-0.5%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
Social workers £28,182 (+1.6%)
Firefighters £28,183 (+0.3%)
Office managers £28,790 (-1.8%)
Human resources personnel £28,999 (+1.0%)
Car makers £29,845 (+1.9%)
Web designers £29,870 (+5.5%)
Midwives £30,020 (+2.0%)
Scaffolders £30,591 (+2.8%)
Coal miners £30,688 (-8.8%)
PRs £31,818 (+0.4%)
Telecoms engineers £32,253 (+5.3%)
Vets £32,374 (-4.0%)
Hotel managers £32,470 (-2.0%)
Teachers £32,547 (+1.4%)
Journalists £35,117 (-0.4%)
Train builders £37,613 (+3.3%)
Civil engineers £38,236 (-2.7%)
Quantity surveyors £38,855 (+1.5%)
Police officers £39,346 (-1.2%)
Construction managers £42,066 (+8.3%)
Architects £44,024 (+3.3%)
Electrical engineers £44,430 (+3.7%)
Solicitors £44,787 (-2.3%)
Train drivers £45,489 (+3.7%)
Barristers & Judges £45,571 (-2.3%)
Health managers £46,629 (-4.7%)
Financial advisers £46,797 (-0.3%)
Dentists £53,567 (+14.3%)
Senior police £58,727 (-3.5%)
[b]MPs Now £66,396 (+1%)[/b]
Doctors £70,646 (+1.3%)
[b]MPs Future? £74,000 (+11%)[/b]
Airline pilots £78,482 (-0.1%)
Chief executives £117,700 (-4.4%)
For example there solution for the North is to spunk cash on HS2 to make it faster for us to get to london rather than make it easier for us to get to places in the North. I have been twice so this change will be less than life changing personally.
Oddly enough, I have two clients in the SE who are pro HS2 as it would enable them to relocate/expand their companies across the UK without having to worry about how inaccessible they are - something that is a real concern with our current (lack of) infrastructure.
You could argue that they are looking to take advantage of lower property costs/wages 'oop North' but if that's what is needed to make them competitive in their respective market places and enables them to flourish & grow then I'm all for it.
JY, I accept perhaps live I live in a "different world" but don't you think you'd want your MP to be talented and thus well paid. £75k isn't that much to live and work in central London, one of the reasons you see many MPs from financially secure backgrounds is they can afford to take the job with all the risks and uncertainties.
You add to your list top local government people, police, head teachers. You're paid more as a head teacher than as an MP and the former is a much better and more rewarding job and you don't risk getting kicked out and being made unemployed every 5 years.
A few other snippets
Top accountant (partner at say KPMG) £500-750k
Partner at London Law firm £1m-£3m
Average FTSE 100 board member £2.5m
You can argue that some these figures are too high but we wish for top notch talent running the country but we don't pay for it.
You add to your list top local government people, police, head teachers. You're paid more as a head teacher than as an MP and the former is a much better and more rewarding job and you don't risk getting kicked out and being made unemployed every 5 years.
I would argue that a head teacher has a far, far more demanding job than an MP.
Top accountant (partner at say KPMG) £500-750k
Partner at London Law firm £1m-£3m
Average FTSE 100 board member £2.5mYou can argue that some these figures are too high
Gosh, no, they're doubtless worth every penny. I can't imagine anybody on here arguing that.
😆
add to your list top local government people, police, head teachers
WOW three more jobs that really negates my point about how well paid they are ...GO YOU.
don't you think you'd want your MP to be talented and thus well paid
I would want them to be better at maths and more grounded than you as well. To answer yes and yes - the problem is you seem to think that the top 10 % and almost x 3 the national average is not well paid. I know not why.
£75k isn't that much to live and work in central London
three points
1. You said they dont come from westminster so they do not actually live there.
2. You really ought to familiarise yourself with their expenses claims and culture - iirc there was little bit of this on the news recently.
3. I doubt they are alone in working in London but not living there and I am sure many do it on more modest incomes with less expenses to boot.
The more you write the more I am convinced you are a turing test or an automated satire bot.
automated satire bot.
ha ha I like that ! All those jobs I quoted are paid more than MPs, you are saying to me you think the head of local government should be paid more than an MP ? Perhaps I've lost track of what you are/are not saying here.
I am pointing out that those talented enough to rise to the top in politics almost certainly could earn much more outside and those outside and successful aren't incentivised to become MPs. KPMG has 600 partners making those sort of amounts.
I'm well aware of the expenses (see my post earlier that they should be paid more and have expenses). They are elected elsewhere and then have to spend a significant amount of time in London which is very expensive.
@aracer, its not about whether they are worth that pay but what pay is available if you are talented.
From memory the top French/German ministers make about euro 500k pa
[quote=jambalaya ]I am pointing out that those talented enough to rise to the top in politics almost certainly could earn much more outside and those outside and successful aren't incentivised to become MPs.
Because the only possible incentive is money?
ha ha I like that ! All those jobs I quoted are paid more than MPs, you are saying to me you think the head of local government should be paid more than an MP ? Perhaps I've lost track of what you are/are not saying here.
Someone in charge of say 8,000 staff, perhaps serving a large city and ultimately responsible for highways, adult social care, education and child protection?
@aracer, no of course money is not the only incentive. I was just trying to point out that if you are successful in businesses being an MP isn't attractive and if you think you'll be successful in business you' not go into politics in general.
@ransos, well in my view the local MP does all that and more.
@ransos, well in my view the local MP does all that and more.
Your MP manages several thousand staff and is responsible for child protection? Could you explain how?
Because the only possible incentive is money?
I always knew you were a tory bastard 😉
I can forgive that ...possibly but rollerski FFS man have a word with yourself will you.
Shall i say it again oh why notI was just trying to point out that if you are successful in businesses being an MP isn't attractive and if you think you'll be successful in business you' not go into politics in general.
We dont need more rich people in parliament nor PPE students, nor media, PR nor law. We need more plumbers, nurses, shop workers, cleaners etc you know the stuff most of us do and who live like most of us do
FWIW if you wont be a politician because it is not personally financially rewarding enough for you at that salary then I am delighted we remove the greedy from standing. Its public service after all and paid better than most other public servant jobs. If you are doing it for personal wealth then you are self serving rather than public serving
I am happy the salary is too low to attract them. In fact I am delighted
MP's pay is always an interesting discussion. jambalaya makes a fair point that, in order to attract the brightest and best people onto government you need to pay a salary that is comparable to the top earners in the country. Rightly or wrongly, £75k does not come close even though it is clearly a very good wage.
Obviously money is not the only drawn to politics, having power is also a draw, one I'm not sure should be seen as a positive thing.
The other way of doing things is to pay a much lower wage to MP's in the hope of attracting people with real interest/passion rather than those driven by money. Sadly, that means many will take other jobs with the associated conflicts of interest that brings.
@ransos - because he/she votes on the legislation and budgets etc.
1/650th of the say on what's going through Parliament. And it's not even that because they'll invariably do what the whips tell them. Wow!
In contrast, we all know what happens when the wheels fall off in child protection or in a school - that's why managing those institutions is much, much more important.
We've already had a tory/labour coalition, it was called new labour.
😆 @ NW
in order to attract the brightest and best people onto government you need to pay a salary that is comparable to the top earners in the country.
That would be to attract the greediest in society
The underlying is assumption there is everyone who gets paid more is somehow better than everyone who gets les. that is false and it is false to say they wealthy make the best MP's. Imagine Wayne rooney as an MP for example. Furthermore rising to the top as an accountant may not prepare you for being a public servant. Its a daft assumption IMHO. Pay and talent are not that clearly linked IME it tends to show either who works the hardest or kisses the most arse rather than talent
IMHO if you cannot live on x 3 ish the average salary of the people you serve with another home and free transport then you are not fit to serve
You need to live live at least vaguely like the people you serve
When GO was slashing the welfare state and disability benefits a labour MP interrupted to ask him which ones he had used and which ones he would miss most. Ho many MP's know folk on disability? Are close friends with say a supermarket worker? Having more folk disconnected from the everyday experience of us all is no help and neither is assuming wealth = talent
Junkyard - do you really want nurses, plumbers etc to be MP's? I don't want that any more than I want an MP to look after me in hospital or service my boiler. I totally understand that the people we elect as MP's should understand the issues those of us in the real world have, but I'm not sure that taking your average hairdresser and putting them in charge of the foreign office for example is necessarily a good idea.
Of course a back bench MP is a position of relatively low responsibility, but from those 650 back benchers we need people who can manage huge departments with budgets in the billions. Could you do that? Because I'm pretty sure I couldn't.
I'm not saying for a moment that all the MP's we currently have are suitably experienced and knowledgeable to run the country successfully BTW. But removing them and replacing them with blue collar workers or people who often only have experience of running one man band enterprises is not I think necessarily the answer to our current dearth of political talent - on both sides of the house.
I'm not sure what the answer is BTW!
It's funny because it's true JY 😉
boriselbrus - Memberfrom those 650 back benchers we need people who can manage huge departments with budgets in the billions.
Not so much, that's what we have the civil service to do. Otherwise the entire country'd stop working every time we have an election or a reshuffle or a Theresa May. Well OK, bad example.
Not so much, that's what we have the civil service to do. Otherwise the entire country'd stop working every time we have an election or a reshuffle or a Theresa May. Well OK, bad example.
😀
I agree. Although I suppose it depends if you believe Humphrey Appleby or Jim Hacker as to who runs the country!
I suspect we all agree that what we have currently is far from ideal although how we fix it is not so clear. Interesting though that we generally have a complete distrust and disdain for our MP's even though we elected them...
Even after the expenses scandal, we [i]knew[/i]some of our politicians were basically fraudsters and we still re-elected them.
Maybe Douglas Adams was right about the lizards...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you
You can argue that some these figures are too high but we wish for top notch talent running the country but we don't pay for it.
I don't believe that there's a statistically significant group of people that wanted to become MPs but didn't bother because it wasn't well paid enough and that that resulted in a significantly lower quality intake to the political process.
money isn't the only form of remuneration as an MP: there's also prestige, a degree of influence, and access to a network for further moneymaking opportunities (mostly but not always upon exit from Westminster).
aracer - Member
Lest we forget - effective government requires strong opposition.
So how do they manage in Germany? Presumably the government is totally ineffective and the country is going down the pan?
Good question aracer. Considerable debate going on within Germany right now on this verv point. Some German academics and economists are indeed suggesting that the lack of opposition to the perceived wisdom/consensus is or will be the root of Germany's future problems. Thanks for reminding me. I might post the links later if you are interested aracer!!!