Blair’s family have done very well out of the London property boom. And would have without him being PM.
So, his family's incredible wealth has nothing at all to do with his extremely powerful and influential global connections then? All simply down to hard graft, right?
Starmer not taking on new work five years ago is in no way equivalent to Tory MPs taking on paid consultancy work. That “same arse” comment has nothing to back it up at all.
You really don't think Armrest would happily take lucrative extra jobs if he could 'get away with it'? He's probably been lining up his career beyond politics, all along. He'll no doubt be richly rewarded for his work in destroying the Left, and undermining British democracy. There'll be no shortage of grateful beneficiaries of that, lining up to thank him...
But even when the Mail published this the other day, it was still referring to generic ‘MP’s’, so by implication it’s all of them that are at it
Interestingly, they've moved the language this morning... "Tory" in the sub heading... perhaps it'll be in the headline next...
Blair’s family have done very well out of the London property boom. And would have without him being PM.
Bollox
He flipped prioperties and paid for them out of expenses - that gave him the start - and he has been paid eyewatering sums for almost no work
His snout was as firmly in the trough as any tory - which is of course what he was. He wanted to be rich. that was his only aim
He may well have not have done "as well", but barristers who got into property in London in the 90s are all sitting on very tidy portfolios now. The Blairs and their children would be sitting very pretty now if they'd stayed away from politics. Happy to accept they'd probably be less rich... but they would still have been very well off indeed.
He may well have not have done “as well”, but barristers who got into property in London in the 90s are all sitting on very tidy portfolios now. The Blairs and their children would be sitting very pretty now if they’d stayed away from politics. Happy to accept they’d probably be less rich… but they would still have been very well off indeed.
Agree with all of that. Two people on roughly 6 figure salaries dealing in property in a booming market would do well whatever the circumstances. I'm no Blair fan and happy to knock him but this isn't really it and certainly nothing like the the current Tory sleaze. That's where the focus should be.
Here's a thought....
We could pay MP's more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
Pay cabinet ministers tripple their salary but prohibit them from taking a job in any field that relates to their Ministerial brief for 5 or 10 years.
Tell me why this wouldn't work?
I’m no Blair fan and happy to knock him but this isn’t really it and certainly nothing like the the current Tory sleaze.
Seriously? I'd read up on the Ecclestone affair... looks pretty similar to me.
Agree though that the current Labour Party isn't responsible for Blair's dodgy deals twenty years ago.
We could pay MP’s more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
Sounds great... but what about making money from owning things, rather than for hours worked? What if you part own an investment fund, for example, that will profit from political decisions made that you are in a position to influence. "Jobs" is just the most easily understandable bit of all this.
I'd like something in the rules to allow some outside work though... for example medical staff that want to keep the ability to practise... perhaps they could have whatever they learn outside result in a decrease in their MP's salary. Would definitely like payments from media and press to result in a decrease in an MP's salary.
We could pay MP’s more (double their salary) bit prohibit jobs on the side.
IIRC, one of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) MP's live in state provided accommodation midweek, have free public transport passes they are expected to use and have a state appointed secretary etc for equivalent of the constituency office.
I’d like something in the rules to allow some outside work though… for example medical staff that want to keep the ability to practise… perhaps they could have whatever they learn outside result in a decrease in their MP’s salary. Would definitely like payments from media and press to result in a decrease in an MP’s salary.
It'd be relatively straight-forward to define the parameters for jobs that were socially beneficial. And we're talking a small percentage of 600 people here, so the effort would be miniscule - a simple function of an ethics and standards committee, oh wait....
They are paid enough, and the way that greed and immorality has been legalised at the top of society they don't even have to break the law to bury their noses in the trough.
They commit these acts for the thrills, and to prove they are above the rules of mere mortals. They hold the public in such contempt that they decide to see how far they can push beyond the boundaries just to keep score by how much they are "winning".
MPs should be paid a relative amount to the national minimum wage - Ie a small multiple thereof so cannot have rises without minimum wage rises and they are paid plenty well enough
Apart from Saint Jeremy of Corbyn of course. Somehow all the money he gets for his extra-curricular activities is all just fine and pure and virtuous and just morally superior
You're obsessed with Corbyn. What is this extra money he gets BTW?
Your lack of logical consistency is quite astonishing binners - simultaneously slagging people off for saying 'they're all as bad as each other' while doing exactly that.
You’re obsessed with Corbyn. What is this extra money he gets BTW?
He’s a millionaire from all his rent-a-gob performances for Iranian State TV and Russia Today when he was in his comfort zone of anonymous backbench time-server
Boris Johnson writes for the Telegraph and he’s an evil bastard who is part of the right wing press. Starmer gives an interview with the Sun and he’s ‘colluding with the enemy’. Corbyn is on Russia Today every time they needed anyone to denounce ‘The West’ while he was an MP (before pretending to be Labour leader) and that’s all peachy ****ing creamy, because… erm…
The hypocrisy is absolutely off the scale
Or are you saying that Russia Today has some kind of moral authority that the Daily Telegraph lacks, so therefore it’s ok to be on their payroll?
Your lack of logical consistency is quite astonishing binners – simultaneously slagging people off for saying ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ while doing exactly that.
I’ve never said or implied that ‘they’re all the same, as I believe the polar opposite.
I’m merely pointing out that there are plenty on ‘the left’ who, given the glass houses they inhabit, maybe should refrain from lobbing half-nackers about
What about party gets A amount based on number of MPs. A is a hourly rate x no of MPs x hours in working week.
MPs have to fill in weekly timesheet party pays the wage. Hours and "project" charged to all publicly available.
Accommodation and office support provided.
Accommodation and offices provided by the state, seems like a very wise move to me. Paying the MPs mortgages for them, when they then vote on policies that have the state bending over backwards to ensure property prices keep going up, and earnings made by owning properties are protected, has always seemed odd to me. Need a pad in London to stay in to do your parliamentary work? Here you go... you can stay here. Need a constituency office... here you go... you can take over the one the previous MP used... the state owns it
What about party gets A amount based on number of MPs. A is a hourly rate x no of MPs x hours in working week.
MPs have to fill in weekly timesheet party pays the wage. Hours and “project” charged to all publicly available.
Accommodation and office support provided.
Doesn’t stand a chance. It equates money earned to amount of work carried out you must be crazy (Where’s the angle on that).
He’s a millionaire from all his rent-a-gob performances for Iranian State TV and Russia Today when he was in his comfort zone of anonymous backbench time-server
Citation needed.
You won't get one Grum because its bollox. the " corbyn is a muillionaire" bollox came from the fact he owns one house in london
Citation needed.
Will a Monty Python gif do instead?
I wonder how much Iranian TV pays for an appearance by a backbench opposition MP? Maybe I should have gone into politics.
Last figures I know off were in about 2017 when it was said RT paid about £1000/hour for MPs. The only numbers I can find at all regarding Corbyn in particular is a report that says members of the shadow cabinet have appeared 26 times since 2015 when Corbyn took over. So even if you say 20% of that (random figure pulled from my arse) is JC, and each slot is say a 10 minute interview (about the going time of broadcast interviews with politicians) that total is still just under an hour; 52 mins
So perhaps as much as £870...I wonder how he spent this fantastical wealth, chucked a few more Koi into his piano shaped pool? added a wing to the National Theatre?
It does bear saying though that allowing shadow cabinet ministers to appear on RT at all...strikes me as tone deaf at best.
EDIT: It also bears saying that it sort of neatly demonstrates the different levels of either perceived or actual corruption that we're discussing here. Even critics of Corbyn (or the Labour party in general) would be hard pressed to say that he's in the same league of Patterson or Cox or indeed the Tories as a general rule.
intheborders
Free MemberAnd how cheap are they ‘bought’?
This is the one thing that I can never quite understand. I mean, I understand the facts of it, I just can't ever really comprehend it, like some weird math model shape that can't exist in the real world. But for the most part they're so cheap, I could afford to buy a Tory MP. When you look at the scale of the corruption, the billions of pounds that get poured down the drain (and more importantly the lives that are casually destroyed) during covid, none of them are making a good return on that- they're selling out for pennies.
So why? Do they think it's right- like their god given duty is to give public money to rich people and they just need the opportunity? Are they dim enough to think they're getting a good deal, like a bank branch insider risking jail over a few hundred quid? Everyone's got their price, but at least I can be certain that my price isn't so pathetically low.
"They are paid enough, and the way that greed and immorality has been legalised at the top of society they don’t even have to break the law to bury their noses in the trough."
But are they though? I'm sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP's salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary. The Chair of my Housing Association probably earns more than the PM! Do any af you share the same responsibility and exposure that an elected politician does?
I wonder how many well paid but suitable candidates decide to not go into politics because the income drop combined with the hassle would be too much?
If they've got their noses in the trough, take the trough away and replace it with a simpler, more transparent remuneration system. It might deter the most self Serving and greedy candidates whilst at the same time encourage those with a bit more to offer society.
Or we could just through rotten fruit and vegetables at or politicians and make them grovel for their wages, (though granted, that would make for a good t.v. show and the tabloids would love it)
But are they though? I’m sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP’s salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary.
Oh really - what world do you live in?
I think in general MPs are probably not paid enough. Having spoken with a couple (Yvette Cooper, and Alex Sobel) it can be a 7 day a week job and the hours are both long, frustrating, and as we realised recently again; dangerous to one's health. Certainly if Johnson can earn more as a columnist that he can as PM then something's wrong. There's a Wikipedia pages showing relative salaries in US dollars ($185,000 for PM) we're very much at the bargain basement end of developed nations for pay.
Not short of a bob or two, are they?
Doesn't occur to you that a top human rights lawyer's income and some canny investments ahead of the last big property boom might be involved?
Sure, Blair had his nose in the trough, but like Sunak, he married well.
cox is my MP. his 'constituency office' is just down the road from my house. I can go and take photos of the cobwebs over the door later.
he'll ride out the headlines and get voted back in at the next election with a thumping majority. he doesn't even bother campaigning.
It is very convenient to compare MP's salaries to the 1%ers, when that is the section of society that policy has most benefited over recent decades, that section of society that has accelerated away from the normal life experience, while more and more people are left struggling from paycheck to paycheck or becoming part of the underclass that carries the burden of poverty.
It is no wonder so many MP's believe that they should abuse their positions for personal gain, with impunity, if that is the only section of society they are benchmarked against.
it can be a 7 day a week job and the hours are both long, frustrating, and as we realised recently again; dangerous to one’s health.
for some. for others, its a hobby and a bit of pocket money...
The Tries have a baked in 1/3rd of the electorate that simply dont care how incompetent/corrupt they are
A police investigation into peerages cost millions last time & came up with nothing,
but it did taint Blair somewhat (even tho Tories were equally culpable)
The Cox thing is different he doesnt seem to have broken any rules, its absolutely farcical that he was being paid a fortune to work from the caribbean to defend the BVI against HMRC (whilst we were being told we must go back to work) and neglect his job as an MP , hes in such a safe seat though that not much will change
be interesting to see what it does to the Tories long term poll numbers
he doesn’t even bother campaigning.
Nor does mine, I may have had a leaflet in 2015 I think. But then to be fair, neither do any of the other parties locally.
We have never had anyone canvass on the doorstep in the 26 years we have lived here, for any election at any level.
He has a 24000 majority up from 20000 in 2015
simply incorrect
No it isn't TJ. Cash-for-honours is very much associated with New Labour/Tony Blair, whether you like it or not.
I can't be arsed to read the last couple of pages but I see that binners has gone into one of his usual rants about "lefties". So a couple of points....
Firstly I wasn't passing judgement when I made the remark "that's another idea Johnson has pinched from Labour", it was more of an observation than anything else. I didn't say whether I thought cash-for-honours was a bad thing or a good thing.
Obviously you won't be surprised to hear that I am not impressed by the concept. But cash-for-honours is not very high on my criticism list of New Labour.
For me someone getting a seat in the House of Lords because they gave a political party a million quid is not any less acceptable than someone getting a seat in the House of Lords because they went to school with the Prime Minister, or because their great-great-grandad was a Duke, or because they are a Church of England Bishop.
In fact I think that giving someone a seat in the House of Lords because they have helped to finance a political party is as good as any other reason.
And as far as I know it isn't even illegal, which presumably is why despite being investigated Tony Blair was never charged in relation to cash-for-honours.
If you think cash-for-honours is a problem then you don't understand the problem.
Keir Starmer when he made his bid to become Leader of the Labour Party stood on a platform of the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a fully democratic second house. Obviously he binned that committment as soon as he won the leadership election.
But that is exactly what is needed, a fully democratic second chamber. Ideally one which also fully represents the federal nature of a devolved UK, including English regions. Not some ridiculous hangover from a distant feudal age ffs.
Tinkering is not the solution, unless your aim is to maintain as much as possible undemocratic structures. Cash-for-honours bollocks is just one more distraction. The only solution is abolition.
Btw my apologies for making comments which might be interpreted as challenging the political purity of the echo chamber....... carry on slagging off the Tories and telling each other what a shower of ****s they are. I know it means a lot to some people. No idea what it's supposed to achieve though.
Cash for honours goes back to before the labour party existed. Yes Blair was in it up to his neck but it gores back way before him Wilson and the lavender list, Lloyd george and even James the 1st and 6th
But are they though? I’m sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP’s salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary.
Oh really – what world do you live in?
I bet he's right, from replies on this forum it's clear there are plenty of wealthy members.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
And as far as I know it isn’t even illegal, which presumably is why despite being investigated Tony Blair was never charged in relation to cash-for-honours.
It is illegal to sell a seat for cash. However its proving that it was a transaction that is the tricky part.
Getting back on topic: at what point does an ‘outside’ or ‘second’ job become the main Job?
I’m thinking what response anyone would get if they told their employer, as Geoffrey Cox did, that they'd be ****ing off to the Bahamas for a month and the stuff they’d be working on would be taking up pretty much all their time, but if their was anything that was really really important then they might be able to squeeze in a quick Zoom call?
… and if you could just keep paying my huge* salary in, as well as my expenses, that would be great.
Thanks
* I don’t care what you do, an MP’s salary (80 grand+) is an absolutely massive income to most people, including myself. Saying you need to supplement that (as Boris has done), in a society where loads of working people need to resort to food banks, is taking the ****ing piss! It just shows how utterly and completely detached from most peoples normality our political lords and masters now are.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
Very top management levels in public service only No one bar a very few public servants. Medical consultants maybe if they get top merit awards.
Again this shows how divorced from reality some folk on here are about how wealthy they are
don’t care what you do, an MP’s salary (80 grand+) is an absolutely massive income to most people, including myself
On one level.
But given the actual shit/abuse and as we know much worse - that MPs have to deal with - personally I don't think it's worth the salary.
There are several lenses to view the way they are paid.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
Newly qualified lawyer at City Law firm
newly qualified? Really?
I want my MPs doing it for public service not to enrich themselves. personally I think the salery too high.
An MP's salary is astronomical to me but I bet it isn't to many on here.
tj, I'll bet there isn't an executive role in the SE that offers less than an MP's salary and there'll be lots of add on's and bonuses at that level as well.
Our current system of expenses and allowances are massively open to exploitation. Increasing MP's salaries whilst removing extras would create transparency and make the job less attractive to wrong'uns whilst rewarding better and more suitable candidates, (no more wasting time filling out expenses for kit-kats and mucky movies.)
Paying ministers more whilst prohibiting them from taking a role within related industries for a period of 5 to 10 yearsis a something some other governments apply to mitigate against corruption and nest feathering.
newly qualified? Really?
Yep, some London offices of US firms are paying £150,000
EDIT: Oh by the way, the Lavender List was regarded as eccentric but historians don't believe there was any question of financial impropriety