Owen Paterson #Torysleaze

Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.

You dont necessarily get the best by buying expensive either.
There are lots of jobs which pay relatively low and yet you still can get the best going into them. Look at many R&D or academic research jobs in physics and maths where there would be plenty of opportunity to make a lot more money in the city.

The idea that with Johnson and co paying them more would make them less self serving seems rather flawed. I would suggest the likelihood is they would still be looking for other money making opportunities on top.

😀 Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)

Yes I have had the mis-fortune of meeting a number. Most of which were complete arses. My least favourite was lunch with Andrew Bridgend. You can imagine how much fun that was.

I would suggest the likelihood is they would still be looking for other money making opportunities on top.

But the idea is you completely stamp that out with virtually no exceptions. Perhaps someone could have additional income but like some kind of means test you reduce their parlimentary salary accordingly. What you’re saying is that you have x to play with and thats it. That amount is generous, but not completely over the top, and doing actual paying work outside of your MPs job just isn’t allowed any more.

Anyone who thinks they need to earn more than 80k can’t possibly have any concept of what normal life is, so how could they make effective decisions for normal people? The vast majority earning over that mark have got there due to a privileged upbringing with no bearing in the reality for most of the UKs population. So I agree with some of the other commenters – the pay can’t go up because if it did, the number of MPs doing it for the money would rise even further beyond those who already are working the second job “access to an MP” system

Yes I have had the mis-fortune of meeting a number. Most of which were complete arses. My least favourite was lunch with Andrew Bridgend. You can imagine how much fun that was.

Fair enough – yes, I bet. Back on the topic of the thread, I organised a trade mission for Owen Paterson to Germany once when he was Defra SoS.

I still get mad remembering him referring to anyone who cared about the environment as “the big green blob”.

But the idea is you completely stamp that out with virtually no exceptions. 

If you’re going to ban second jobs, you don’t need to pay them 250k – conversely, not banning second jobs and paying 250k won’t stop them getting second jobs.

I still get mad remembering him referring to anyone who cared about the environment as “the big green blob”.

Lol. My wife works for the EA and I get mad hearing about the stuff she has to put up with so I can imagine. The thing is I’ve also met some amazing politicians in my life too, just not enough and rarely a British one.

If you’re going to ban second jobs, you don’t need to pay them 250k – conversely, not banning second jobs and paying 250k won’t stop them getting second jobs.

Theres a difference from income and a job and you can’t expect someone to give up a long established income (such as a rental property) to work as an MP for 5 years – thats then heading the wrong way again.

The point being that there should be (or rather would be when I assume control of the system bwahahaha) much tighter restrictions on what can be done and when, and if you have significant other income, you get paid less for being an MP as you don’t need the public’s purse supporting your lifestyle.

Anyone who thinks they need to earn more than 80k can’t possibly have any concept of what normal life is

I know a chef who makes about £90K depending on how busy he is. Grew up in an average bit of Newcastle. Parents and family still live there AFAIK. His concept of life is pretty similar, if not identical to yours and mine. I think it’s probably flawed thinking to conflate earnings with outlook.

Is there a shortage of people wanting to be MPs erm.. no.

Clearly the pay is enough to live very comfortably on. let’s not make excuses from the greed please. If increasing pay would increase quality I would be all for it, but we all know it would not.

I think it’s probably flawed thinking to conflate earnings with outlook.

This, 100%.

So would you prefer to have a better contract or see everyone on zero hours?

I would prefer zero hours to be abolished, not so much for me as it suits my situation but if employers are taking on a youth that person requires financial stability to allow them to fully contribute to the economy. It would help remove the petty martinets that are such poor managers that the only way to ensure compliance is to bully their staff by threatening to withhold income.
I’m at that stage in life where any attempt at that would be met with a “so long, I’ll not be in again” reply.

I don’t get the argument that we cant change the pay structure for MP’s because theyre all a bunch of dossers and they don’t deserve it.

My point is similar to benpinninck’s. Changing both pay and conditions could potentially lead to better candidates putting themselves forward, both in relation to pay and by making the job look (and be) less sleazy to those who might be put off from putting their name forward.

Binners noted that duffer candidates Mark Francois and Richard Burgon wouldn’t stand a chance of earning 80k in the real world. Well in the real world they were selected because they were seen as the best candidates to come forward by their local party selection committee. Would altering The pay structure whilst placing more restrictions on MP’s activities encourage some better candidates to to put themselves forward at those constituency meetings? I think it would.

You know you’ve got a problem when Burgon and Francois are the best people in the room, something needs to be done to introduce some competition in order to attract better candidates.

It’s not about making the job more lucrative or rewarding those that are already there, it’s about making the job more transparent and clearly defined in order to replace the dead wood with better politicians all round.

So, the brightest and best, then?

Liz Truss is sat in one of the highest offices of state. A woman so dense that light bends around her.

Granted, she probably thinks the moon is made of cheese but at some point she was selected to represent her constituency. We need better people than her to put themselves forward at constituency level.

Simplifying and detoxifying the job might encourage better candidates to come forth.

We need better people than her to put themselves forward at constituency level.

She would have still been selected. Selection isn’t a meritocracy, it is like a magicians card trick, the candidates the party HQ wants will get selected, every now and then a local constituency might make a mistake and pick the wrong candidate, then they just get parachuted into another safe seat.

Well in the real world they were selected because they were seen as the best candidates to come forward by their local party selection committee.

There was, at the start of WW2 a real problem selecting folks for officer training. The people that selected candidates were biased to men that they thought were the “right sort”…Thusly Leslie Phillips (the actor in Carry On films you think of as the upper-class cad ) was put forward…Leslie grew up in Tottenham as the son of a factory worker. His cut glass accent was born from elocution lesson he got through stage school.

Selection committees are always unconsciously biased someway or another. Get rid of them, and perhaps even the party system altogether… and I think we’d probably have a better chance of getting decent MPs that are worth paying £80k a year or more..

You know you’ve got a problem when Burgon and Francois are the best people in the room, something needs to be done to introduce some competition in order to attract better candidates

Yes but I am not seeing why just paying more would attract that better quality of staff? It seems premised on the idea that pay does equal performance and ability elsewhere. Which isnt obviously the case when you look at the different jobs and pay scales.

This is going to rumble on

However I suspect that the public already know that the Tories are corrupt as possible anyway

One Labour insider tells me: "Our file on Tory sleaze/donors etc is now so big some of our laptops have had to be customised so they can open it".

I don't think this is going away anytime soon… https://t.co/7dvfa4fdJp

— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) November 10, 2021

It’s not really paying more though is it, it’s setting up a system that will restrict or deter those who exploit the system. The crooks will be paid less whilst the honest will be paid more. If the honest feel they are being paid too much they can donate to charity should they choose.

By paying MP’s more and making it a proper job the aggregate pay for a Member of Parliament would be less.

it’s setting up a system that will restrict or deter those who exploit the system

Again, I am not quite sure how you are getting to this conclusion.
Why would paying more achieve this?
If you are suggesting other measures as well then why not just use those other measures?

Plus you get £305 per day attendance allowance, plus travel expenses and subsidised restaurant facilities.

You see that is the inconvenience of the Lords. At least with the Commons you get paid without actually having to travel to that London!

Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs – even Conservative ones – couldn’t dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when expenses are taken into account) in another field.

Unless you are doing something like employing your wife as your assistant I’m not sure they “expenses” adds 20K extra on does it? Whilst some are definitely still “at it” with claiming their wife manages their diary and emails for £40K a year I had a quick trawl through some MPs I’ve met and it doesn’t seem to be the norm.

The difficulty in comparing an MP ‘s salary with other similar professional jobs is of course, you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.

Mmm… perhaps if you are comparing to some very “safe” job say as a doctor or teacher where redundancy is very unlikely but very few of us can really be certain that we’ll still have a job in 6 months never mind 5 years – and the transition arrangements for MPs losing their seat are very generous compared to those for me losing my job!

Here’s a stupid question, do MPs have an employment contract?

No – they are not employees. Only just starting to get maternity arrangements recently and I don’t think they’ve got shared parental leave (borris could have ages off!).

Why would paying more achieve this?
If you are suggesting other measures as well then why not just use those other measures?

Indeed. If you look at the people we’re talking about here – and for an example let’s say David Cameron – their greed and entitlement is limitless, coupled with complete and total moral bankruptcy

Despite being rich beyond most people’s imaginings, there he was, snout well and truly buried in the trough, tapping up his old mates for grubby favours for dodgy bastards in return for obscene amounts of cash

It’s not because they need the money, it’s just what they do. The acquisition of money and power is all they exist for

binners
Full Member

It’s not because they need the money, it’s just what they do. The acquisition of money and power is all they exist for

“poverty exists not because we can’t support the poor, but because we can never satisfy the rich”.

A Second Job? pic.twitter.com/IE1rlMuJw9

— Matt Green (@mattgreencomedy) November 10, 2021

Why do people keep saying they have to give up a career to be a MP? have you seen what MPs are doing after office (and in) !?

seems the sleaze thing has gained a little traction with the electorate latest Ipsos Mori polling has Tories (down 4) behind Labour(unchanged) by 1.

So who will they pick a fight with now? Frost seems to have drawn back from the brink with the EU but suspension of the NI protocol and thus the ending of the general trade agreement and a trade war with the EU? My top bet

Second bet is picking a fight with the medical profession

third more furriner bashing from Patel

Why do people keep saying they have to give up a career to be a MP?

most of them never have had a proper job – its been internships, party appointments etc etc

1% of the population reach that high level of salary.

that’s not true. 5% of the population are currently earning £80k. If you consider that most people’s salaries peak in the last, say 20% of their career, you can times that by 3 or 4. So under 20% of people ever reach that level of salary? sure, but a lot more than 1% of the population reach that level.

5% of the population are currently earning £80k.

I haven’t checked but suspect it’s not 5% of the population, as that would include children, pensioners and others who are economically inactive.

Also worth noting that the mean salary is considerably skewed by a small number of very high earners – I think the median salary is around £32k pa

poverty exists not because we can’t support the poor, but because we can never satisfy the rich

Powerful words there. Anyone know who first said it?

5% of the population are currently earning £80k

104% of statistics are made up.

Definitive data on earnings in the UK comes from the ONS and the IFS. Show me where either of those say 5% of the population earn £80k.

 5% of the population are currently earning £80k. 

No **** chance.

Eff eff eff – I misread the spreadsheet *embarrassed face*

data is here

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

The email today from Momentum put it better : “MPs already earn more than 95% of the British public.”

I’m not a fan of second jobs but there probably should be some regional weighting on MP’s salary. £80k in London / SE is a lot different to £80k in the North. I don’t see many other ‘professions’ having a flat rate throughout the country, irrespective of living costs.

Errmmm – they get a house bought for them in london they can then sell and pocket the profits and get all fares home paid. so no – no london weighting as they have no extra costs

5% of the working population is an under-estimste as it’s based on salaried employees in permanent roles.
Look at professional interims with arrangements outside of IR35 and day rates north of £600/day – there are loads.

Look at professional interims with arrangements outside of IR35 and day rates north of £600/day – there are loads.

Loads? How jolly scientific. Now – has Sir ever been to a supermarket, or a pub, or a cornershop, or a garage, or a hairdressers, etc etc etc.