UKC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11429320/10-things-we-learn-...

Rifkind is right, how can an MP be expected to live on only 3 times the average salary? I guess it's OK in that case to subvert democratic processes by using one's position to sell influence, and keep up the repayments on the Bentley...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Whilst both have behaved (on the face of it) reprehensibly, what really p*sses me off is the breathtaking hypocrisy of "socialist" Jack Straw..."Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"...or is that "Four legs good, two legs better!"??

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Rifkind is chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (and former chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee) so wields considerable influence, however Straw is an opposition M.P. and standing down at the election in a few weeks, so it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that he could subvert the democratic process. Although it would have been less embarrassing for the Labour Party if, instead of trying to capitalise on his wealth of political experience to generate an income when he leaves Parliament, he had just become addicted to heroin and claimed incapacity benefit.

In reply to EddInaBox:

he could ask his son for a loan if he gets into that nice safe seat which has been lined up for him.

In reply to Olaf Prot:


What's hypocritical about socialists wanting to earn money?

I'm not sure of your point, if that isn't it. No aggro etc implied or intended. (:~))

In reply to Olaf Prot:

Jack Straw is unemployed in 10 weeks time as he's stepping down from parliament.

Why shouldn't be be attending job interviews?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Can you clarify what he has meant to have done wrong? The phrase "useful access" to ambassadors is being bandied about, which does sound dubious, but is there a recording where he uses this online?

I can't see that Straw has done anything wrong, apart from possibly holding a private meeting in his office.

In reply to Timmd:



Well the OP has sarcastic phrase ".. how can an MP be expected to live on only 3 times the average salary?" and similar things are heard quite commonly from socialists. Sounds pretty hypocritical to think earning money is bad while aiming to do so.

In reply to MG:

Has Jack Straw ever said that earning money is bad?

In reply to Timmd:

I don't know - you were asking about socialists generally.

In reply to MG:



Have a read of this...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/23/cash-for-access-allegations...

Private meetings in his office, as well as Straw also claimed he operated “under the radar” to use his influence to change EU rules on behalf of ED&F Man, a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year.
He also boasted of convincing the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws that would have hindered the same firm’s sugar refinery in Ukraine.

In reply to MG:

I was.

Thinking about it, New Labour have been very generous towards the richest in UK society, if Robert Peston's 'Who Runs Britain' is to be believed.

In reply to Timmd:

You think New Labour are/were socialist?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

OK, that does sound dodgy.

In reply to Tony the Blade:




Previously others (e.g..Cameron) have been cleared of any offence in occasionally holding "private" meetings in their offices.
And he explained that this meant being non confrontational; persuading and cajoling rather than hectoring. I'm no Straw fan but this sounds a not unreasonable explanation.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Rifkind defended himself robustly this morning on R4 and I have to admit he did it well.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


As did Jack Straw.

jk

In reply to dissonance:

I think Straws son is contesting Rossendale which is a Tory seat. Straws son beat a mate of mine to the nomination

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it requires some explanation - as stated it sounds like £60k gets EU rules changed in your favour by a politician. Quite possibly there is a "clean" explanation but it does sound dubious.

In reply to MG:

It's more that Jack Straw probably hasn't been very hypocritical, what with being part of not very socialist New Labour.

I'm not his biggest fan by the way.

In reply to jkarran:

They were both given an easy ride - at one point Humphreys even let Rifkind suggest they "might be running out of time?"

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I thought this was quite funny.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britain-disappoin...

Straw has nearly always tried to cover his own back, going as far as emailing Tony Blair to say that the war in Iraq shouldn't take place after voting in it's favour. Not a lot of integrity.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/conservatives...

In reply to Postmanpat:



I agree. I suspect this will turn out to be a bit of a fuss about nothing. I have a degree of respect for both Rifkind and Straw as being more principled than many MPs and I'm rather inclined to give them benefit of the doubt until I see something a bit more convincing.

If I have doubts about Jack Straw it's about his very careful usage of the terms 'rendition' and 'extraordinary rendition' under questioning, but that's a rather larger issue.

In reply to Timmd:



Actually I think that Jack Straw's whole political life has been a gentle drift into hypocrisy. The young Jack would probably have spat in the old Jack's face. If young Jack actually believed any of the thing s he said that is.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: so MP's really earning three times the average salary? I am sure there are posters in this thread earning more than the offenders in this case.

And George Galloway 303k in extra earnings? - respect , George!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

No matter how it's spun it's still pigging at the trough, there is a big difference between an MP keeping their hand in professionally such as a doctor or a nurse, engineer, chemist but these guys busines was the business of government and we are paying them for that, they shouldn't be peddling this to the highest bidder. The fact they did no due diligence to see what form of business they were dealing with does them no credit either.

In reply to imkevinmc:



because he has a sizeable pension to look forward to ?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

What's that got to do with coffee grinding......

In reply to jethro kiernan:

The most galling thing about it is the "..because I can.." attitude shown by this pair and many of their shifty colleagues in the previous expense disgrace.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


I must admit that was one of the first things to cross my mind. Apparently a number of other MPs were approached by the same team of journalists, and at least one of them spotted it as being dodgy. The idea that you'd offer your services to an unknown company without at least googling them seems a bit dismal.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


So there is some sort of unwritten law that when a person leaves their mainstream career they should cease all paid activity?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think the point is that they haven't finished one particular career before they stick there nose in the trough, also bearing in mind the potential conflict of interest and the generous pension involved they should be clearer guidelines and extended periods of gardening leave for MP and certain senior civil servants. I know my employers might have a problem with touting myself about for £5000 pounds a day whilst they were paying me.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I would genuinely prefer MPs to earn twice what they do but be barred from accepting money from other organisations while in office. If the voting public pay you £65k per annum and your friends at Acme Power Company ltd. pay you £200k a year, who's your daddy?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

But if you wanted a career change or to do a job in a related field for a company that would pay you more, and you had already handed in your notice, it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be job hunting as long as it wasn't on your current employer's time.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


That's like being the tallest midget.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


They could just have some integrity...

In reply to Postmanpat:


no, I'm suggesting he won't be on poor street when he stops being an MP because of his pension

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

... Then we would have morons (with integrity) running the country because they were too incompetent to get better paid jobs at Acme Power Company Ltd.

In reply to wbo:


It's not how much you earn, it's how you "earn" it.

I think the point is, that Rifkind as part of the "we're all in it together" government, is somewhat naughty in claiming it's impossible to live on £67k while being part of a government who have arguably gone to war on the poor.

In reply to EddInaBox:


That's an interesting take on it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

A pair of grade a kuntz. Not a fag paper between them in terms of political outlook. Even the left wing politicians in this country are pre approved by their deep state handlers.

D

In reply to EddInaBox:
So £67K is a mugs wage, and anyone not on the board of director's is a moron?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

No but anyone genuinely capable at governing could earn that or more elsewhere.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Can you point to where he said that?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Well maybe there should be, but the system is set up to allow MPs to undertake other activities and that is public knowledge so I am not quite clear at this stage what rules these two are supposed to have been broken, especially in Straw's case. It seems this is either just an attempt to sell a few papers with a non story or part of a campaign to have the rules changed. I'd be more sympathetic to the latter as long as they then double MPs salaries.

Worth pointing out that of the £7.4mn earned outside parliament by MPS (£11,400 per head) nearly half was earned by ten people (!) so the rest earn an average of £6,400 and the average time spent on this per MP is 40 hours per year or about 45 minutes per week. Quite profitable work but hardly a great imposition on their time!

In reply to MG:

"Sir Malcolm says it is "unrealistic" to expect MPs to live on “simply £60,000” a year"

It's a caption to the picture of Rifkind.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, Milliband seems to have decided that it's now Labour policy that their MPs won't be allowed to have any other income after the election. I have to say that such a simplistic (and apparently unilateral) decision suggests comfortable privilege rather than working class solidarity to me.

In reply to MG:
I think the point is if a high wage is important then they should get careers in industry, but they shouldn't try and mix the two it wasn't even industry it was influence peddling. People are getting a little sick of people in positions of power acting as though it is the most natural thing to screw every penny out of a situation. £5000 for a chat!

In reply to wbo:

MP salary is £67k.

How high up a reasonable size organisation woudl that pay band equate?
Even in the health service is middle management stuff; less than GP or consultants; less than Band 8c nurse.

Yet we're asking these people to run the country.

I would far rather have half the number of them at twice the pay and get some more capable people in.

As it is, the motivation gets skewed towards people with an unhealthy interest in power for power's sake (yes, there may be those who wish to serve, but they're few and far between).

Get some proper talent in, but pay for it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

He said that it was unreasonable for people with some business experience to work as an MP for £60, 000 a year and that if they couldn't earn more, they wouldn't go into politics. It was quite clearly the monkeys/peanuts implication, so beloved of the bankers in our country.

In reply to JJL:


I would want to see evidence that paying more actually gives higher quality.

Oh and the 67k is for the lobby fodder. Those in government or in charge of committees get more. Admittedly doesnt work perfectly with those in opposition but then they aint doing heavy lifting.

In reply to JJL:

And if we the public thinks they shouldn't get any more money, but leave the outside interests behind, we shouldn't be surprised when we're only respresented by the seriously well-healed.

In reply to JJL:


Starting salary of the G10 Professorial (top) level of our institutions pay range is £58,617.

£67K with benefits, while not being in the league of what a 27 year old math genius working for KPMG might earn, sounds like a damn good salary for an MP.

In reply to JJL:

No, we're asking a few of them to run the country. The majority just do as they're told.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

For info:
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/569849730399907840

His total salary as an MP amounts to £82k - on top of the basic MP's salary he earns an additional £15k as chair of the Intelligence & Security Committee.

He made an additional £262k from other sources.

And he still managed to have a surprising amount of free time!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Getting weirdly off track here as usual!

I can work two jobs but if one has a serious impact on the other then I'm in trouble. And what they were doing was not doing some work on the side, but accepting bribes to effect the decisions and policy of their main job, one of serious responsibility. Its like a teacher changing lesson plans so as to advertise Pepsi to the kids. An abuse of their responsibility. Only on a. Much larger scale.

In reply to andyathome:


I suspect he was sincere, back then. And let's give him the benefit of the doubt. But as for the rest? I'm sure you're right.
Nothing new, one may say. ('Power corrupts...' etc.) But sad, bloody sad.

Mick

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Being a simple soul, I've always interpreted 'rendition' as torture and 'extraordinary rendition' as torture to the degree where it would be kinder to put a couple of bullets in the poor sod's head.

Mick

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Next week there will be complaints that all politicians are not in touch with the real world and have never had a real job. If they have abused their position fine, throw the book at them. But we either pay them a lot more, let them earn extra, or accept third rate politicians.

In reply to MG:


I am not sure acting as a lobbyist really counts as a proper job (tm) or indeed as particularly in touch with the real world. Possibly more the opposite.


Dont suppose you have the research supporting this do you? Could start with showing how much they have improved since 1996 in line with the rapidly increased salaries.

In reply to dissonance:

I'll revise that to third rate or independently wealthy politicians. It's generally true you get what you pay for (pay peanuts get monkeys etc) so I think you need to show politicians are an exception, if you think so. We started paying MPs in the first place to avoid this problem.

In reply to dissonance:

Actually maybe you are right. We started paying MPs and look what happened. Empire gone world war 2, Suez, Tony Blair, Iraq. Bring back gentleman amateurs.

In reply to MG:

How convenient that it works that way. Of course the pay peanuts get monkeys is meaningless unless you determine what is peanuts.
Lets remember these MPs do not need any training, any qualifications and, at the 67k mark, are junior staff. If they do take on a role with any real responsibility they will be paid more.
This is a couple of years old but reasonable for comparisons.
Note how few professions pay more than that 67k? Including many which I would hope you would not consider only employs monkeys.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2269520/Best-paid-jobs-2012-Offi...

In reply to dissonance:


It's bit misleading because the averages are based on everyone from the trainee to the top dog and , reading the text, it seems to exclude bonuses which in some occupations are bigger than the salary.

Most MPs are 40+ so realistically they should be compared to remuneration at the higher levels of other occupations.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not sure where you got that from since most include the role and not the entire profession. Exceptions are the actuaries etc although that said I am not sure the trainees would be counted. The actuaries I know dont get that title until they finish the training eg about 5 years into their careers.
Or to take System architects I dont know anyone who has been a trainee in that. You get that title after they run out of standard dev ones (or in some cases when they find you are bugger all use but you have those pics of senior managers and hence cant be sacked but need shoving in a corner).


Not really since an MP is not a high level role. Its a junior one unless you are doing one of the jobs where you get extra.
The salaries have been going up for the MPs steadily, with the ability to work outside, but in most cases we get people who just do what their bosses say. Not really good value for money and I am not sure why paying more would get better staff since there are plenty of professions which pay considerably worse. Perhaps it would be better to look at the general working conditions and the structure of the parties rather than just throwing money at the problem. Since money is only the key factor for a subset of people. I know several people who could do nicely in business but love their research too much.

In reply to dissonance:

Can't remember, but a senior lawyer in London expect well North of 70k so the numbers don't stack up unless juniors are included.
Well, that's part of the problem. If we regard the 650 people (twice as many as there should be) who make the laws that govern us and vote on key issues like budgets and going to war, as junior functionaries then that's what we'll get.
I agree that changing the nature of parliament and parties, and changing working conditions, are important but halving the number and doubling their pay, which aside from a thing else would increase their chance of gaining responsibilty, would be a start.

In reply to MG:


Are you sure that's as far as the choice goes?

In reply to David Martin:



I agree.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

This is obviously by somebody who doesn't like Jack Straw, but it made me question how principled he has been in his political life, I now find it hard to say if he has been.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martin-bright/2007/10/jack-straw-brown-el...

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think that would strongly depend on which area you are in. If you went the CPS or defence/legal route the pay would be rather lower (a few of them have been getting pissed off recently about it).
Think the 70k plus is for high end corporate and a few other areas.
Doesnt mean the others are necessarily less skilled and capable but just chose areas which doesnt pay well. Which really is the point. There are plenty of superbly capable people who choose jobs which dont pay well since that isnt what drives them. By treating pay as the key factor may attract some people from the well paid jobs who are idealistic but may also attract those driven just by the cash. Who then are unlikely to stop with the higher salary but start lining up future pay to the detriment of their current employers.


Well they would need to show otherwise first since what we have seen is a remarkable rise in pay but if anything an even more presidental government.

You also then open the can of worms about who do we actually vote for? The person on the paper or the party? Since if it is the party then why pay for thinkers and not funtionaries since those who do the thinking will get more senior office and hence pay (or more likely those who backstab but lets be idealistic). If the other then what is the whip for?

In reply to Rigid Raider:


That's the skill set that earns him £5k per day to be convincingly persuasive.

In reply to dissonance:

There are a couple of ways I can think of to determine a salary - looking at the actual job role and benchmarking it against similar jobs, and testing the market to see if there are any shortage of candidates.

A bog standard MP goes (when they can be arsed or they've been whipped) to parliament and votes how they've been told to vote (often while behaving like a 12 year-old schoolboy). They run a constituency office, often employing a spouse with disregard for the employment laws they themselves may have introduced, with no budget other than their own expenses (which seems to flummox many of them). They have no executive power, and most of their work is simply signposting people to the organisations with the actual power to get things done, most of which is done by a lackey. Comparing that to senior lawyers, medics etc is just bullshit. It's more comparable with someone in the contact centre at a Council on £25k a year. Local councillors often have more power to actually get things done. Many public sector workers have infinitely more stressful and complex jobs with less support and on about half that pay.

And as far as testing the market goes, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of willing candidates, does there?

In reply to MG:


Can't they earn extra in ways that don't involve letting foreign firms have privileged access to senior politicians for money? Would Rifkind or Straw help me to have this kind of access to influence British politics if I wanted it, or needed it to further my interests? I doubt it.

These kind of things show how arrogant, greedy, unprincipled and stupid they are.

I find your direct linking of salary to job performance profoundly depressing. Not everyone is motivated solely by the need to make vast amounts of money.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Auto shit talker. 5000 a day. You can tell the mans lies because his lips are moving, apt cliche for this one.

D

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As I said, if they have been peddling influence wrongly, they should be punished, but I am not yet convinced they have.

Practically everyone will try to maximise their income while balancing other concerns, there is nothing to be depressed about there.

In reply to MG:

Selling influence isn't a real job, claiming you can't live on £67 with generous expenses is out of touch, taking cash payment for doing something that should be your job is graft

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Glad someone else spotted that. Its not so much MPs seeking outside work that bothers me, its the way a committee chair did it given his current outsdie income and the recent past of scandals. I've done nothing wrong rings very hollow. I bet he gets more free time now. Jacks imcome was a good bit above, average as well and again what he said seems pretty dodgy.

In reply to David Martin:



I disagree. My basic salary is considerably higher that that and in a good year I will earn well over three figures - this year closer to 150k. In my industry i am pretty average with many earning considerably more. I can assure you 100pc that my responsibilities and workdays are are much, much lower than MPs.

67k is not enough.

On the the subject of the op, I thinks its a non story. MPs should be allowed to have jobs outside parliamentary duties so long as there is no conflict of interest or the 'main' job isnt affected. I dont want career politicians and quite frankly, what they do after they leave the house is their own business.

In reply to dissonance:

Those figues on This is Money are pretty misleading and not too accurate IMO, certainly in my profession of finance. Every broker I speak to earns multiples of £100k, a director in financial services could be back office ~ £80kish or front office £250k + easily (in London). When my wife was a primary school teacher a few years ago she was on £45k (admittedly in London), same as solicitors apparently? My solicitor friends do a lot better than that.

There is a London bias in my experiences above, but MPs will spend a lot of time working in London.

In reply to Timmd:



You could equally rewrite that article using the same facts to show that Straw was a pragmatist who knew how to get things done, didn't wholly subscribe to simplistic policies from any faction, was publicly loyal and reliable and took cabinet responsibility seriously while making clear his reservations in private, and was prepared to change his opinion in the light of new facts and situations. That is, he is a highly successful politician with a mind of his own.

I'm not saying I'd completely swallow this either; nobody survives in politics for as long as him without being ruthless when necessary but, as far as I'm aware, this is the first whiff of scandal in a very long career so I'm prepared to reserve my judgement until the facts are a bit clearer.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

But living in their constituencies, with there London expensives covered.

I've always said that MPs salaries should be pegged to a public sector grade and should have similar conditions to public sector workers. I for example am a middle ranking manager in local government, I earn less than an MP, but decent money, I need express permission to take on outside work and anything with any sort of conflict of interest I would expect that I would not get that permission.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:



Riffkind is the MP for Kensington. In which case his salary probably needs to be closer to £500,000 a year to be able to live there.I suspect most people on £150k could not even afford to live there with a family.

In reply to neilh:


A problem for all public sector employees. Let's remember, whilst many of them don't live up to the standards of conduct we expect from public sector employees, that is what they are.

In reply to JJL:


Hardly, for 67k we expect them to turn up and vote when and how the whips tell them to then to go back to their constituencies and represent the people of that constituency, some are better at this than others. Given the very limited power of redress the voting public has between elections and the tribal nature of voting all they actually have to do is enough to get re-selected by the party next time round which basically means no scandal and toe the line in parliament.


To do what, whatever the whips tell them if they want career progression?


You'd get the same sort of people working in the same restrictive system, it'd just cost more.

jk

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Or possibly your profession is being overpaid?


You do realise we are discussing Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw here? Whilst the former did spend some years out of office it wasnt through choice.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Perhaps. Seems reasonably accurate in the areas I know well.


Then she was an outlier judging by the education departments own figures. Possibly on one of the higher bands with additional responsibility payments (like MPs get additional pay for jobs with responsibility).


For which they get very generous allowances on top of their salary.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

The world has moved on. There's no mandatory retirement age any more.

In reply to dissonance:



Salaries on qualification at a leading law from are £68k average, so about the same was an MP.

A high end city lawyer would be £500k+. A non equity partner in a mid size national firm would approach £200k and an equity partner more than that in a good year. They may be a minority but there are plenty of them.
The brokers' £95k that is quoted would be a basic before bonus.


Pay is not everything but in real life it is important. One of the reasons are governments are so crap is that there are hardly enough talented MPs in any part to make a cabinet. We need to to change that somehow.

Standing for parliament is about ego and ambition.

Paying a decent living wage is necessary to enable those without independent means to become MPs otherwise it is (more or less) restricted to those ego maniacs with independent means which is hardly representative of all ego maniacs.

Given that your core constituency of MPs is those with sufficiently high opinions of their own opinions, so long as the wage is high enough enable them to live without starvation and to represent across social class it is enough. FWIW I think it is too high, that we've too many posh people in parliament and that paid employment should be heavily restricted while working in government. It is also important to consider the benefits, expenses and treble gold plated pensions that inflate the basic wage considerably.

The argument against this is we might not have so many top barristers etc as MPs but this doesn't bother me in the slightest - I'd prefer them to be replaced by a more representative bunch. The idea that Rifkind would have to live in a bedsit to represent Kensington is silly (but very attractive).

In reply to Postmanpat:


For some specialist areas of law, yes. Others pay a lot worse and it isnt simply down people not being capable that makes them chose a specific area.
There are also rather higher standards demanded for lawyers than MPs.


For some people, yes. For others not so much. By emphasising pay alone you are likely to end up with those purely interested in that. Which then leaves you hoping that they wont consider their term of office as preparation for future life and hence be feathering their beds.


I agree but throwing money at a problem is rarely the correct answer.
Do you really think that, if we doubled the money, we would end up with a new set of MPs or just with the old lot with more disposable income? What do you reckon the chances would be of getting through the party approval process for this newcomer if they hadnt already made their political bones?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Try watching the latest BBC documentary on the Houses of Parliament. Tell that to the bricklayer who is an MP in a Liverpool constituency. Tell that to the likes of Sara Champion form Rotherham. You are talking a load of crap.

In reply to neilh:

" You are talking a load of cr"

Errm where?

Here: Standing for parliament is about ego and ambition?

Here: Paying a decent living wage is necessary to enable those without independent means to become MPs?

Here: The idea that Rifkind would have to live in a bedsit to represent Kensington is silly (but very attractive).?

In reply to dissonance:


I think MPs salaries are about right. But I also think we need to allow (perhaps even encourage) them to work outside being an MP. For the capable ones this will mean they can earn a lot more and it will also make it an attractive varied career for them. Insisting as some on this thread do that it is little more than a clerical role, that they should be paid ~£25k and that they should be banned from outside activity is nonsense.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:
ego and ambition.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:




A wild and inaccurate generalisation


It requires much more than living wage or you will simply get a new form of uniformity amongst MPs.


Attractive maybe, but silly. He just wouldn't be an MP (which in his case may not have been a great loss).

In reply to MG:
Sort of on topic....what would any of us see fit to pay this women...to do anything?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/natalie-benne...

this is not a dig at the Greens per se, more a very recent example of how incompetent you can be and still get to the top of your political organisation

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Arrgh! I could only take the first minute. As cringe-worthy as Faulty Towers.

In reply to Postmanpat: neilh:


I most definitely disagree here - those that stand have a very strong (but often false) opinion about how important they are.

And on the other points it sounds like you agree!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

A big part of the problem here is that most people really can't be bothered to get engaged (bleating on forums isn't getting engaged). I'm sure I'm not alone (even on this outspoken forum) of never even having attended my MPs weekly constituents surgery to register any direct input. All I've ever done apart from voting is write to my MP twice over planning issues.

In reply to MG:


it also means they wont have time to do the MPs job properly. They will either fail in government roles or in their constituent role. Its only recently that ministers stopped having part of their MPs salary docked since it was acknowledged they probably couldnt do that job as well as someone who didnt have responsibilities.
Also how would you manage the conflict of interests? Considering, as in this case, the external work seems more about providing contacts based on their political office it would give certain risks.


The majority of people are pointing out MPs arent highly trained or capable staff but fairly low level functionaries who follow orders. Bit more than clerical but not really a top end role. Those who do top end roles get paid more.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Dunno. All that shows is she is shit at interviews. Is she as bad at everything else?
I havent followed the greens much since whilst I have some sympathy with some of their policies their anti science stance is too annoying.
Plenty of very competent people would fall apart in an interview whereas plenty of professional wafflers would get away with it. I benefited it from it at uni when some lecturers had the reasonable idea that getting people to stand up and present and then defend ideas was useful but didnt actually spend any time explaining how to present.
End result was the few people with any natural inclination or, like me, previous training did better even if the actual content was crap.

In reply to dissonance:
There is shit at interviews and not having a clue what your talking about. She was just guessing, total amateur. How can she have absolutely no idea about her own policies? It was hardly tough questioning

As leader of a political party, dealing with interviews on your own policies in a competent manner should be a minimum requirement. You are being far to generous

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


We don't pay her to be a Member of Parliament!

In reply to The New NickB:

Not yet, but we could be if she wins a seat and is a great example of the sort of calibre involved in our political parties. and they have fought tooth and nail to be included in the TV debates...will be a good laugh

In reply to neilh:


Speaking as someone who has had meetings with many MPs and Ministers in a professional capacity over a lot of years I would say that ego and ambition is indeed the driving force for many of them.

It might start out differently but the pampered existence and fawning followers, journos, lobbyists and anyone else soon make them inflate their own idea of self worth and they start to exist in a dangerous bubble of unreality.

In reply to dissonance:

It's another daft aspect of the whole system; that MPs are supposed to be experts on arcane macro policy issues and also sort out their constituent's drainage or benefits issues. If we really want them to do both we need to pay for sufficient and competent staff.

In reply to Postmanpat:

that MPs are supposed to ... also sort out their constituent's drainage

This is good to know. I am worried about my neighbour's ash tree's roots. I will give my MP a call.

In reply to MG:



I am sure he/she will be ecstatic to help……..

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


My limited exposure to MPs and candidates suggests, perhaps unsurprisingly, a vast range in their ability and competence, irrespective of their party or my political prejudices. Reassuringly, most of the utterly useless ones have been candidates (who failed to be elected) or junior MPs, and the most effortlessly impressive have been pretty senior (I'd include David Owen and Douglas Hurd in this category). Friends who move in these circles assure me that there are also fair few spectacular gobshites, egomaniacs, piss artists and sex pests, also irrespective of party.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Rather my (second hand) impression. One expect somewhat outsize egos. Rather difficult for a shrinking violet either to
get elected or get heard.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, I suppose. A very senior academic female friend who regularly met MPs including committee members was pretty shocked at the level of casual and blatant sexism and the sort of suggestions that would get you sacked from the company I work for.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:




Wow. Tell me how I can earn £150k with a lack of critical thinking skills!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Yes, this is very odd. Similarly it has been taken for granted in all the companies that I worked for that expenses would only be reimbursed on the basis of receipts. Many MPs still seem to regard this as an imposition. They seem to live in parallel universe.
I can't help thinking that the Rifkind/Straw case is part of this. They seem to be unable to understand what their conversations and assumptions might look like to the outside world.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'm sure many will disagree (and I could be wrong), but my general perception is that the calibre of front line politicians has declined over the last 30 years. Maybe my view is jaundiced but since Tony Blair and new labour, the rise of the spin doctor and the rise of the internet, the expenses scandal,and now covering up of potential child abuse (admittedly that is more historic) I have found myself finding it very hard to differentiate between any of them thinking they are all bare faced liars, or total incompetents.

At one end of the spectrum you have the obvious incompetence of Natalie Bennet above, then at the other end, the ironed out dehumanised interview bot like this

youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8&

I am sure they are not all bad, just not feeling much love for them right now (exception being Tom Watson)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


not at all. You said about employing her in any job not just leader.
Although there is knowing policies and really knowing them. The correct answer in many cases should be "let me refer to the notes for the breakdown". Anyone who can memorise all the components of the policies either hasnt got a lot to do, is a freak of nature or runs a party with bugger all policies.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I had better tell my brother then that as an equity partner in a biggish national firm he is underpaying himself by a significant amount.

In reply to Postmanpat:


We do. The problem is the MPs get to choose the staff so ended up, in the past, with family and now with party members.
I tend towards thinking taking CAB as the starting point and coming up with a country wide standard approach would be more sensible than leaving it to MPs individual whims.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


He doesn't know? Figs were taken off a legal website.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


ok, with you there. Although Blair was only a continuation of an existing movement. He just managed to jump it far further along for various reasons.


and this is where I would stop agreeing.
Expense scandal. You really think it was better 30 years back?
potential child abuse. That was the child abuse going on thirty years back and successfully covered up until now?

In reply to dissonance:

The "to do anything" line I thought was obviously tongue in cheek, but hey ho

Obviously you and I expect different standards from our politicians, glad you're easily pleased. In my world, I want my politicians to be able to explain how they are going to fund 500, 000 new homes (if that's a core policy) without folding like a French airport terminal under basic questioning.

In reply to dissonance:



The Greens are making the elementary mistake of listing all their policies. It's a recipe for being caught out. Better to take the Farage approach and keep it vague. Apparently the Green supporters are more interested in the Green's general outlook than anything as trivial as actual policies anyway (according to an analyst of R4). This is lucky for them judging by the policies.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

>
Malcolm Rifkind? Edwina Currie? Need I say more?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


So you would expect them to answer a question on any policy in complete detail? Personally I prefer people to spend their time more productively and remember enough to refer to notes when required.
The again I have had plenty of bad experiences of the "remembering is all" approach when dealing with people whose education exists solely of that.
Makes them bugger all use when debugging random issues or doing anything other than coding exactly what they have been given.

In reply to Postmanpat:

My figures are taken from the horses mouth

(First website I looked at showed much lower figures than yours)

In reply to dissonance:

No, my point was (which reading my post back wasn't clear) that since it came to light, it was another nail in the coffin for me rather than worse than 30 years ago. As for the (alledged) child abuse was historic (as I admitted), but the cover up/silence is ongoing.

In reply to dissonance:

Rifkind just resigned as Chair of the Committee and is stepping down as an MP.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think my perception is skewed by the Westminster fish bowl being more transparent to us mortals now than 30 years ago...

In reply to Postmanpat:


True although an alternate approach is to list the policies but have a nice line of patter to distract away when it gets to deep (Boris being rather good at this). Generally needs a sympathetic interviewer though.


I think he hasnt recovered from when he read their last set of policies.
Werent they supposed to be publishing some new ones by now although the bloke in charge got given the boot or something.


I suspect the same could be said for most of the parties.
one thing I have found curious is how many UKIP supporters go on about a EU referendum whilst ignoring that the only stable policy UKIP have is to leave the EU eg no referendum.

In reply to dissonance:

Come on! If you go on radio as party leader to be interviewed about your policies you can be expected to be able to explain key points clearly. How much does this cost and how will it be paid is hardly asking for "complete detail".

In reply to MG:

The bindingly obvious thing to do is surely to point out that it is not normal in the UK to match every detail of spending with a specific revenue source? She can then waffle on about "soaking the rich" and executing bankers and all that to explain how things will be financed.
Utterly clueless.

In reply to MG:


Every policy? I would doubt any of them could unless they have f*ck all of them or dont have anything better to do with their days.
She came across badly and, like I said, I dont have much time for the greens since some of their policies are dangerous, but do you really think Cameron could answer queries about every single policy?

In reply to dissonance:

I don't think knowing how to fund 500,000 new homes is "complete detail" . Explaining which sites will be chosen and why , the mix of green energy supplied vs conventional, how the local infrastructure of schools/hospitals/road systems will be adapted to cope and how this will implicate on existing services....that would be "complete detail" that I would understand if she was not committing to exact numbers on in an interview.

In reply to dissonance:


Well, judging buy PM's questions, yes he could. And so could Brown and Blair and probably Milliband. Sure, they have teams of researchers to prepare them but it's still impressive.

In reply to dissonance:
Cameron usually has the basic angles covered when he's talking about a core policy, I can't think of many "car crash" interviews he has had, but happy to be told (because they are always good fun to listen to)

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor responded with "Bill somebody" when asked which business leaders support Labour. For me, this is another example of charlatans masquarading as serious politicians. If you want me to take you seriously (politician, not Dissonance), at least have a basic grasp of some facts. It wasn't exactly a suprising leftfield question given the main news story of that day.

BTW, I am not singling out any party here...just examples I am thinking of....I have no doubt there are many examples across the whole spectrum....which is kind of my point

In reply to dissonance:

It's one of their headline policies and she is the one who claimed it was fully costed but then couldn't explain how. It's hardly like she was challenged on left-handed wing nut policy funding plans.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Starting to muse upon whom the pair of them had manage to piss off, Chilcott is going to happen sometime in the next year Straw will likely be deeply implicated, Bogus Enquiry into torture and rendition by Headed by Rifkind is about to report in the next couple of months - again Straw unlikely to get off lightly. Or just door stepped by a cute Chinese lady bearing gifts and decades of hubris by a pair of Westminster reptiles comes undone?

D

In reply to Postmanpat:


yup it is a particular skill. Not necessarily that useful one though outside that range. Although it is worth noting the PM questions tend to be somewhat predictable, due to the questions in advance, and if all else fails you can just start a fight with the opposition and get your backbenchers to help out.
I dont recall him doing that many open interviews though. Which is also a wise move for any party leader. Avoid the awkward bastards and one the greens and ukip (occasionally) have forgotten.

For ill informed comment his speech on encryption was up there.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Except that Edwina Currie's downfall was telling an uncomfortable truth. A lot of chicken and eggs from battery farms were contaminated by Salmonella. Not actually a massive problem as long as everything is cooked properly but she was pilloried as though what she said was nonsense.

Of course she was also a member of a government that was big on 'traditional values' while she was shagging (the apparently happily married) John Major...

In reply to Dave Garnett:


You can't get much more traditional than that.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Except that she is just a bit third rate, irrespective of whether she was accidentally right about salmonella. Maybe she'd pissed off somebody in Dauphin's "deep state" (grasps tin foil hat….)


I though the shagging took place before Major was PM and promoting "traditional values"?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Care to elaborate. We're all dying to see you exercise those extensive skills.

R

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


He is not claiming to have any!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Could it not be that you are overpaid? Just because you may do less for your £150k, doesn't necessarily mean someone who does more but earns a 60% less is underpaid.

In reply to Postmanpat:


OK, that's right; she wasn't yet a minister but he was Chief Whip...

In reply to The New NickB:


Im sure folkson here like to argue, simply for the sake of arguing.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Oh no they don't!!

In reply to David Martin:


Im completely overpaid for what I do. I also believe that others are underpaid for their efforts also. Does that make my opinion less valid. Doesnt mean yours is more important than anyone else's.

In reply to The New NickB:


He should perhaps stop throwing stones from his glasshouse then.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You seem to have missed the point rather impressively.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Another innocent man unfairly hounded out of office?
( probably not)

I wonder if Straw will now try to cling on, and if he still get his 'promised' seat in the House of Lords?
( and of course he has still got Chilcot hanging over him, I almost feel sorry for him

In reply to dissonance:


Yaaaaaaawn! Go on then, I'll bite.

Astound me.

In reply to Jim C:




Cling on to what? He announced in 2013 that he was standing down at the coming election.

In reply to tony: Just read this,

“There is such anger in the Parliamentary Labour Party, as well as I may say incredulity, about their stupidity in allowing themselves to be suckered in a sting like this. Their behaviour, prima facie, does indeed bring the Parliamentary Labour Party, as well as Parliament, into disrepute, because it appears that former Cabinet ministers are more interested in making money than they are in properly representing their constituents.”
Mr J. Straw, Justice Secretary, March 2010, commenting on Stephen 'Taxi for Hire' Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, all caught out in a sting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/23/jack-straw-past-sting-stupid_n_6...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




You couldn't make it up. Gold dust.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Now this is in the trough

http://www.buzzfeed.com/solomonhughes/nhs-contract-stoke

In reply to imkevinmc:



Boo, hiss, "privatisation", we're all doomed, fetch the cross and the garlic…..