The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

This is the bit I generally have a problem with. I hold a seemingly 'old-fashioned' view that public service isn't about advancing one's own interests. I'm a public servant, and I see my role squarely as, y'know, serving the public. Sure, I want to be paid fairly, but that's all. Because I didn't go into this work for my own advancement - I did it because I need a job and I wanted to do a good job that's helpful. That seems to be seen as eccentric these days.

You'll be no good as an MP then.

3 hours ago, Tony said:

This, of course, is a nonsense approach to take in that it defies both logic and decency. If being an MP was a full time job how would anyone also be a member of the Government?  

 

What matters is outputs, not inputs. If we're to take Sir Geoffroy Cox QC MP as the example d'jour, have you got some evidence that his constituents are unhappy with his performance as an MP?

 

I genuinely haven't checked, so what have you got to back up your assertion of only having one job? Your idea has only one endpoint, that the Commons will be inhabited by political cranks and the idle rich. 

 

What politics needs is that more people who aren't political cranks or idle rich are encouraged into representation and law-making. If the job only brings opprobrium, hate mail, death threats, low pay and always ends in failure why on earth would you, or I, ever get involved? THAT is what needs changing.

But that's we've got now. Professional politicians who then get second jobs when they can use their political connections.

 

There are exceptions of course.

[alchresearch 210]

3 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

You'll be no good as an MP then.

But that's we've got now. Professional politicians who then get second jobs when they can use their political connections.

 

 

Not to mention the donations.

 

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/angela-rayner/financial-disclosure

 

You've got to ask yourself what Rajesh Agrawal and Martin Taylor want for their tens of thousands of pounds in "private donations".  A little bit of digging into their background shows that their activities could certainly benefit from having an MP in their back pocket.

[melthebell 862]

37 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Not to mention the donations.

 

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/angela-rayner/financial-disclosure

 

You've got to ask yourself what Rajesh Agrawal and Martin Taylor want for their tens of thousands of pounds in "private donations".  A little bit of digging into their background shows that their activities could certainly benefit from having an MP in their back pocket.

Exactly, it's all rotten to the core

[Guest sibon]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

You'll be no good as an MP then.

But that's we've got now. Professional politicians who then get second jobs when they can use their political connections.

 

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

There are exceptions of course.

What we actually need are professional politicians, in the sense that whilst they are MPs , thats what they are focusing on. Having a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds is clearly desirable, but they should park their professions upon entering parliament. 

 

If we are going to reform stuff, let's reform the lot. No more second jobs. Give them proper research and clerical support from professional researchers and clerical workers. No more employing family members in posts that they are not qualified to do. I'm looking at you, Nadine Dorries.

 

Let's make MPs employees, with five year contracts, a proper code of conduct, proper disciplinary procedures and proper legal responsibilities. Then let's all expect better from them.

 

£80k should be a good enough salary to attract good people to be mps, whilst also discouraging those who only seek to enrich themselves.

[Delbow 681]

Totally agree @sibon on the second jobs. If the most MPs could get was £80k then it would filter out those whose desire to make money exceeds their sense of public service. Of course we'll hear that if we don't let them 'earn' more than that, we'll deter the top talent, but you only have to look at executive salaries in the UK to see that what a lot of people think they're worth far outstrips their actual ability.

[Guest sibon]

2 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Totally agree @sibon on the second jobs. If the most MPs could get was £80k then it would filter out those whose desire to make money exceeds their sense of public service. Of course we'll hear that if we don't let them 'earn' more than that, we'll deter the top talent, but you only have to look at executive salaries in the UK to see that what a lot of people think they're worth far outstrips their actual ability.

We are currently allowing quite a few of them to earn a lot more than £80k. There is still a distinct dearth of top talent.

 

Maybe the real top talented people are not minded to plunge into the open sewer that is our political system. 

[Delbow 681]

12 minutes ago, sibon said:

We are currently allowing quite a few of them to earn a lot more than £80k. There is still a distinct dearth of top talent.

 

Maybe the real top talented people are not minded to plunge into the open sewer that is our political system. 

I'd like to hear an objective explanation of why Nadia Whittome, who only keeps £35k of her annual salary, is a less effective MP than one who doubles their full salary from a second job.

[Carbuncle 0]

52 minutes ago, sibon said:

What we actually need are professional politicians, in the sense that whilst they are MPs , thats what they are focusing on. Having a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds is clearly desirable, but they should park their professions upon entering parliament. 

 

If we are going to reform stuff, let's reform the lot. No more second jobs. Give them proper research and clerical support from professional researchers and clerical workers. No more employing family members in posts that they are not qualified to do. I'm looking at you, Nadine Dorries.

 

Let's make MPs employees, with five year contracts, a proper code of conduct, proper disciplinary procedures and proper legal responsibilities. Then let's all expect better from them.

 

£80k should be a good enough salary to attract good people to be mps, whilst also discouraging those who only seek to enrich themselves.

I agree. This would make a good start.

 

It is worth pointing out it that some MPs have a second job as a member of the Government which is impossible to avoid in a system that so thoroughly tangles up the executive and legislative functions. Likewise some MPs hold party posts as second (or even third) jobs which is again hard to avoid. In both cases, the second job is a distraction from what they were actually elected to do as well as a possible source of corruption depending on what you count as corruption. For example, about half the Lib Dem MPs elected in 2010 got a big salary uplift through being given jobs in the Government. They entered Parliament under a progressive manifesto which their voting record once there did not reflect.

[Guest sibon]

9 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I agree. This would make a good start.

 

It is worth pointing out it that some MPs have a second job as a member of the Government which is impossible to avoid in a system that so thoroughly tangles up the executive and legislative functions. Likewise some MPs hold party posts as second (or even third) jobs which is again hard to avoid. In both cases, the second job is a distraction from what they were actually elected to do as well as a possible source of corruption depending on what you count as corruption. For example, about half the Lib Dem MPs elected in 2010 got a big salary uplift through being given jobs in the Government. They entered Parliament under a progressive manifesto which their voting record once there did not reflect.

I think that the cabinet "second job" thing is just a  distraction from the substantive issue.

 

 I had a "second job" and sometimes a third one whilst I was working. They were all paid for from the same source and I was accountable to the same people for both jobs. That's the key thing. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by sibon

[nightrider 13]

6 hours ago, Tony said:

This, of course, is a nonsense approach to take in that it defies both logic and decency. If being an MP was a full time job how would anyone also be a member of the Government?  

 

What matters is outputs, not inputs. If we're to take Sir Geoffroy Cox QC MP as the example d'jour, have you got some evidence that his constituents are unhappy with his performance as an MP?

 

I genuinely haven't checked, so what have you got to back up your assertion of only having one job? Your idea has only one endpoint, that the Commons will be inhabited by political cranks and the idle rich. 

 

What politics needs is that more people who aren't political cranks or idle rich are encouraged into representation and law-making. If the job only brings opprobrium, hate mail, death threats, low pay and always ends in failure why on earth would you, or I, ever get involved? THAT is what needs changing.

80k isn't low pay. And if someone thinks it is perhaps they are not going into politics for the right reasons. If you just want to be stinking rich go and do something else. 

[Carbuncle 0]

9 minutes ago, sibon said:

I think that the cabinet "second job" thing is just a  distraction from the substantive issue.

 

 I had a "second job" and sometimes a third one whilst I was working. They were all paid for from the same source and I was accountable to the same people for both jobs. That's the key thing. 

MPs work for and represent constituencies while ministers work for and represent the Government. Sometimes that is a conflict of interest sometimes it is not. Certainly ministers are expected to vote with the Government to the extent that voting against the Government is generally shortly followed or preceded by resignation.

 

Perhaps you mis-spoke but it is worth noting that Government jobs considerably outnumber the cabinet ... I seem to remember that in the region of 140 MPs also hold government jobs. Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom .

 

Any way, much as I dislike it I have no proposal for a fix. Certainly not since the US, which does effectively separate the legislative and executive branches of government, showed the possibility of electing a lying, narcissistic moron as head of the executive was plausible.

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, sibon said:

 

What we actually need are professional politicians, in the sense that whilst they are MPs , thats what they are focusing on. Having a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds is clearly desirable, but they should park their professions upon entering parliament. 

 

If we are going to reform stuff, let's reform the lot. No more second jobs. Give them proper research and clerical support from professional researchers and clerical workers. No more employing family members in posts that they are not qualified to do. I'm looking at you, Nadine Dorries.

 

Let's make MPs employees, with five year contracts, a proper code of conduct, proper disciplinary procedures and proper legal responsibilities. Then let's all expect better from them.

 

£80k should be a good enough salary to attract good people to be mps, whilst also discouraging those who only seek to enrich themselves.

But, in the main, we're getting either ex-lawyers, ex-business/PR types or those who have been involved in politics since leaving uni (via the "right" school of course). How are any of these going to know what's it's like to run out of money before the end of the month, or  just to get their kids into a decent state school or even a Dr's appointment?

 

Yes there are exceptions where people have built a career in something worthwhile but they're thin on the ground.

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

I'd like to hear an objective explanation of why Nadia Whittome, who only keeps £35k of her annual salary, is a less effective MP than one who doubles their full salary from a second job.

If they're earning more than £80k not being an MP, being an MP is the second, less important job.