my point was that as an aristocrat he didnt see the need for a public health service that included looking after the poor
You should check your history books, kimbers. Your point is fundamentally wrong - but don't let that stop you in your class war crusade.
BTW in case it needs mentioning, I'm not a toff - far from it. I've also probably had closer contact with far more of them than you, and I can't say I'm particularly a fan of many of them - it's just that unlike you I don't see why it should disqualify somebody from holding political office. Surely a high standard of education (Eton/Oxbridge) is actually an advantage in people we expect to take difficult and important decisions?
football does not discriminate on the basis of education,
neither does politics. what grades do you need to stand for election?
last time i looked anyone can stand, so long as they can put down the deposit, which they get back if they poll 5% of the votes cast.
[i]You should check your history books, kimbers. Your point is fundamentally wrong - but don't let that stop you in your class war crusade.[/i]
really, i got my information from simon schamas history of britain thingy
and a qick google tells me the conservatives under winston voted against teh formation of the nhs 21 times
They'd have to think a little harder if they think this is going to pull the wool over peoples eyes. (sun reader's excluded.)
OK, just updated this to: They'd have to think a little harder if they think this is going to pull the wool over peoples eyes. (sun reader's AND some Singletrack Forum members excluded.)
If it had been 20-30% cut, it would have been a better message to send to the electorate. 5% cut is an insult to people's intelligence. Of course you'd have to have some in the first place to realise you've been insulted.
Complainers: please go out tomorrow and set up a direct debit giving another 5% of your pay to charity.
No? Then stop whinging.
It's a bit of a token gesture, but worthwhile and a warning to all of us in the public sector that we may be next. Cabinet ministers are showing that nobody is going to be able to carry on as they were.
I agree we need to give this coalition time to settle in before we start reverting to the same old dull "Fatcha" abuse - let's wait till they deserve it.
And lets bear in mind that this time the Lib Dems are involved, it's not just the Tories.
And while I agree about concerns over career politicians and toffs with no real world experience, a lot of people were clearly asleep for 13 years if they thought that the NuLab heirarchy had come from the local comprehensive, had to miss out on university due to cash worries and done several years manual labour before suddenly becoming MPs!
so what about the 4 lonely women in the cabinet?
only a year ago callmedave said 1/3rd of the cabinet would be women
http://www.****/news/article-1175106/A-Tory-Government-ministers-women-claims-Cameron.html
so what about the 4 lonely women in the cabinet?
My wife voted for the conservatives in the election.. I'm joking of course, there isn't a polling station in my kitchen.
look, there is no gesture. these people still get their mp's salary, the ministerial bit is extra... a bit like overtime. they haven't even been paid it yet so where is the sacrifice? i'd be more than happy to sacrifice 100% of what i haven't got.
[i]A great deal of politicians went to private school. It's just that some joined the Conservative Club and others joined the Marxist Society at uni...
They're all the same privileged bunch. [/i]
Some of which put there excellent education and priviliged background to try and help those less fortunate, the others try and keep the excellent educations etc to there own kind.
Dont knock people for having a priviliged background - knock them for what they do (or dont) do with it instead.
"try and keep the excellent educations etc to there own kind. "
That would be the ones who abolished the grammar school system - like it or not, it was the best chance this country ever gave the bright kids from poorer backgrounds the chance to better themselves and their familes.
And it was abolished by the very people who had benefited from it most
As a teacher I really do fail to see how grammar schools help, also if they were abolished how come there are so many round here?
Well, as I understand it our new [i]female[/i] Home Secretary, and only the second ever, went to a comprehensive. Harriett Harman's a Baroness, IIRC.
I believe the only actual working class member of the last government was Prescott, and he certainly milked the fact for all it was worth. Most of the rest were pretty close to being toffs as far as I could see, certainly they had extremely privileged backgrounds, while using class as a weapon to beat the Tories with. I hate hypocrites.
And I am working class. And I hate what Labour did for the last thirteen years. If I hadn't had certain ties I would have left the country.
Brown did not have an "extremely privileged background" at all - his dad was a Church of Scotland minister. Having known a couple of ministers' sons, I can assure you that although they often get a nice manse while they are employed at the local church, they are not rolling in cash by any means.
Clare Short came from a working class background and worked her way up through university and student grants that her colleagues all got and later abolished for others.
John Reid's parents were a postie and a process worker. David Blunkett's dad was killed in an awful industrial accident (for which no compensation was paid bc he was over retirement age) and grew up poor. Robin Cook's dad was a chemistry teacher which wasn't growing up in squalor but it's hardly an extremely privileged background.
Alan Milburn, Margarett Beckett, Jack Straw were all from working class backgrounds and went to state schools (Straw's was a state-funded grammar school, if that makes a difference).
I'm not saying that their working class credentials made them better politicians - Jack flipping Straw! - and neither am I saying that the Labour cabinet did not have people that [i]did [/i]come from privileged backgrounds - Patricia Hewitt! - , but it's just factually not true that they most were "close to being toffs" and all from privileged backgrounds.
It's also not true that Labour used class as a weapon to beat the Tories with for thirteen years. It's simply a fiction. It's almost as if you have entirely missed out on the rise and reign of Blairism (lucky you...). Blair's government was one that was petrified of the "C" word and had Mandelson out telling the world "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich".
Double, or even treble their salary, attract the really good people into politics
This is like arguing that rock stars should be paid more so that we get the best candidate. Politics is rock and roll for ugly people. There are thousands of people up and down the country elbowing each other to get onto the councillor/party administration ladder just so they can one day have a faint hope of being an MP - a job with no educational or professional experience requirements that lets you have a decent salary, pretty good expenses, an excellent pension, and fantastic follow-on employment opportunities: directorships, lobbying, charities administration, media, industry. But more than that, you get massive ego massage and attention - foreign trips - your face in the newspaper and people listening to your every word! For the egomaniacs that make up most of parliament, money can't buy what they want.
set % of football apprenticeships should be reserved for the children of those people who were always picked last at school.
Great so in life we pick people who have no talent for things rather than find something they are good at and improve on that?
Whooooosh.
To go back to the original point.
Cameron is a PR flack - and this is a PR move pure and simple.
I don't see it as important in any way but it does set a tone of austerity and does give him a weapon to use when he starts cutting elsewhere. "we shared your pain"
The whole issue of MPs remuneration needs to be dealt with. Certainly our politicians are lower paid than many - but I think they are well enough paid anyway. more than twice average earnings. Its all the expenses and allowances that need to be dealt with as for too long they have used allowances to increase their earnings.
Decent payrise and simplify and stop / decrease allowances. Thats where I would go. As pointed out above there is no shortage of people who want to be MPs.
So how much does the average Cabinet Minister earn?Roughly 145K, so slightly less than 3 Birmingham bin men, or 20K more than 1 council electrician
So a Brum bin man earns 50k a year and a council electrician 125k? :S surely not.. I am hoping a missed something there.. 😀
You are all missing the real point behind this gesture:
Ireland has cut the pay of state employees by 15%, Greece by 20%, Spain now by 5%.
Our ecomomy is in a similar desperate condition to the above, it's a question of cutting public expenditure or the IMF will do it for us.
The cabinet ministers pay cut is designed to prepare you state employees for similar cuts.
Here ya go maxray 🙂
[url] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6982335.ece [/url]
Under UK law the pay of state employees cannot be cut.
But ministers are state employees right?
cripes 145k would cover my entire watches wage for the year ;-(
But ministers are state employees right?
Yes, but they're going to agree to it (which is the point TJ missed - pay can be cut with the agreement of the employees).
[b]Our ecomomy is in a similar desperate condition[/b] to the above, it's a question of cutting public expenditure or the IMF will do it for us.
No, it's not.
