This is getting beyond bad

greg66_tri_v2.0

MPs expenses. It's pretty much crystal clear now that MPs expenses might as well be renamed "MPs trough for gorging themselves on other people's money to fund their living costs".

Nevertheless, to bring this (vaguely) on-topic.

If you're employed or self-employed, you can set the costs of cycling against tax PROVIDED that the cycling in question is between one place of work and another. If you use your bike for other (non-work) purposes as well, you pro-rate the business use and claim a proportion of the costs against tax. Cardinal rule: you can't claim anything for riding to/from home from/to work.

So best case: you have two places of work and one bike that you only use to move between them. You're a higher rate tax payer, so you get 40% of the running costs of your bike back.

That's the rule for Us.

The rule for Them is found here.

In short, if you're an MP, you are paid 20pence a mile to ride to/from your home to Westminster or your constituency office, or between Westminster and the office.

So not only do you not get done over by the home to/from work rule, but you're paid to ride a bike.

FFS.

And these people wonder why there's a big outcry at the moment.

The "I blame it on the system line" (attrib: Ed Balls-ucker) works about as well as cheating because the ref's crap, then blaming the ref.

And breathe...

Feltup

Wonderful rant! Now would you like a camomile tea?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Feltup wrote:

Wonderful rant! Now would you like a camomile tea?

No, but I need the nurse to come along and pick my blanket up. And change the channel on the television. I miss Carol. And Richard... NURSE!!!!

Feltup

Now what can I get you?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Err, you can get me something to deal with the cyber police around here.

Type "hot nurse" into google images with safesearch off, and you'll set a few red lights off in the IT dept... :shock:

Gavin Gilbert

There's Real Life, and then there's The World According to Lazy Bigoted Journalists.

gtvlusso

Brilliant.....!

These c0cks have been screwing us over for years......they also do consultancy/directorships and so on on the side too.....

It is simple, basic greed.

I have no issue with high earners, ultimately we elect these people to be the voice of the people they represent and to be the finest political minds to steer the country - I have no issue with paying a fair wage for that.

But being payed just to turn up to work - like the MEP's getting £250 per day for turning up. Come on! Do me a favour!

One rule for us and one rule for them....

LDN-Flyer

Apparently the daily mail has two uses, i use it to wipe my ar*e, whilst you use it as a gospel.

:rolleyes:

artaxerxes

I always thought that you get the politicians you deserve.

Most people in this country are too apathetic/stupid/ignorant/(insert adjective) to care about politics, hence we have politicians taking the p1ss.

shoulder_of_orion

they should get paid a proper salary. £63K pa is not a lot and is hardly going to encourage talented people from all walks of life to enter politics. Even whichever vacuous soul wins the apprentice gets £100K. We should pay them say £250K with no expenses & no second jobs. and if they get caught with their fingers in the till they should go to jail.

If we want them to make critically important decisions on our behalf we should pay them the equivalent of what talented people in industry get paid.

It would cost £163m which is basically a drop in the ocean compared to what has been spent on Iraq, "fixing" the credit crunch, id cards etc etc etc

As the saying goes, "pay peanuts, get monkeys"...

tailwindhome

I subscribe to the Billy Connolly view- "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

DonDaddyD

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

they should get paid a proper salary. £63K pa is not a lot and is hardly going to encourage talented people from all walks of life to enter politics. Even whichever vacuous soul wins the apprentice gets £100K. We should pay them say £250K with no expenses & no second jobs. and if they get caught with their fingers in the till they should go to jail.

Every bit of that paragraph makes me do this :shock:

I don't think using the example of the apprentice is a good comparison to make.

63K is a lot of money. It's a large sum of money. It's a top earner amount of money. Yes some people get paid more yet the average salary in London is 25K (Outside London its even less).

How can you realistically justify 250K or even 63K when some people living in this Country barely make 12K a year for a full time job - and its not their fault, its just the cards they were dealt in life.

A broader perpective is needed I think.

bigmat

Its a market economy. The people with the talents and abilities we need to run the country could generally earn in excess of £63k. Therefore, if we want those people to actually do the job we need to think about paying them more. Not sure about £250k across the board - would be a seriously cushy number up North! But at the moment, I think there is an (almost understandable) attitude amongst MPs that they need to "work" the system to get paid what they earn. If we paid them more, we could strip all of that away and have a more transparent system.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

There's Real Life, and then there's The World According to Lazy Bigoted Journalists.

LDN-Flyer wrote:

Apparently the daily mail has two uses, i use it to wipe my ar*e, whilst you use it as a gospel.

Is this now the official riposte of the left-wing faithful?

"The newspapers aren't telling the truth!"

Uh-huh.

So when (as will happen over the next few days) Tory and Lib Dem MPs get dobbed in by the media for their expenses claims, will it still all be the fault of the Daily Blue Rinse?

il_principe

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

If we want them to make critically important decisions on our behalf we should pay them the equivalent of what talented people in industry get paid.

It would cost £163m which is basically a drop in the ocean compared to what has been spent on Iraq, "fixing" the credit crunch, id cards etc etc etc

As the saying goes, "pay peanuts, get monkeys"...

I don't want this lot making critically important decisions on my behalf. They're incompetent and corrupt. If Brown had a shred of dignity left he'd stand down now and call a snap election. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him... I'm almost feeling nostalgic for Blair.

RedJohn

MatHammond wrote:

Not sure about £250k across the board - would be a seriously cushy number up North!

You'd have to pay them the same, you couldn't justify paying them more just because they happen to come from the @arsehole of the country, err sorry London 8)

Trouble is there is such a variety in terms of ability. There are some who could command that kind of salary in real life. There are some who wouldn't be smart enough to hold down a job cleaning a pig farm.

Stuey01

£63K is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. There are tons of utterly useless fuckers at senior manager level in consultancies raking in that sort of dough and I wouldn't have them running a hot dog stand let alone a country. Don't get me started on the partners in these firms. My gf is a consultant, a good one, and the incompetence of some (not all) of those above her cannot be overestimated, yet they earn more than an MP.

The cleaner in my office probably earns about £12k a year, I wouldn't have him running the country either, and that is not because of the cards he was dealt in life, it is because he is stupid and lazy and needs to be constantly monitored to ensure the bare minimum is being done.

MP's are making extremely important decisions that affect the lives of millions, are regularly hauled over the coals in the press and have every aspect of their lives examined, hardly anyone would put up with that for "OK" money.
If you want the best talent pay the best salary.

Stuey01

And for the record, I don't think paying the current crop of self serving pricks more money will do any good. But if you want talented people to replace them then you have to offer a salary commensurate with what they could earn elsewhere.

Sea_Green_Incorruptible

Hmmm.

Parliamentary expenses are a mess and self-evidently open to abuse. Yet the key issue is one of MPs pay. 63k for a high-demand, 7 day a week, 12 hour a day job? Comparable to a senior management position in most other sectors (public or private)? One which requires you to maintain an office in your constituency and in London? And to get elected in the first place? Can't vote for a pay rise without the press shrieking about nurses pay or something? F*ck that for a game of soldiers.

'Calamity' Brown doesn't help things of course. But despite all the cynicsm, parliament and parliamentarians lie at the heart of British democracy. We need them to be able to do their jobs properly and we need to attract the best and most capable people to represent us. And to do that they need to be paid properly. In that context, 63k ain't competitive unless you're either an independent income aristo (most MPs of all parties until the early 70s) or are some kind of technocratic autonmaton whose whole life has been geared towards advancement in the party since 6th form (i.e. most of the younger generation of the three main parties).

The real problem is that there is so much cycnicsm surrounding politics at the moment that it's impossible to have a grown up debate about any of these things. To the detriment of us all in the end I think...

lost_in_thought

Stuey01 wrote:

And for the record, I don't think paying the current crop of self serving pricks more money will do any good. But if you want talented people to replace them then you have to offer a salary commensurate with what they could earn elsewhere.

+1

I also agree that £65k ain't the sort of salary that's going to pull in the brains.

However, it does seem a tad off that there's one rule for them and one for the rest of us.

Much as I agree with the higher salaries for MPs, perhaps the current media furore will get some benefits for the non-MPs as well...

laughingboy

MatHammond wrote:

Its a market economy. The people with the talents and abilities we need to run the country could generally earn in excess of £63k. Therefore, if we want those people to actually do the job we need to think about paying them more. Not sure about £250k across the board - would be a seriously cushy number up North! But at the moment, I think there is an (almost understandable) attitude amongst MPs that they need to "work" the system to get paid what they earn. If we paid them more, we could strip all of that away and have a more transparent system.

I don't understand the argument that MPs are badly remunerated at all.
Since you argue citing market economics, I'll explain my view by using Adam Smith. He said that people are primarily motivated by 'the regards of others'. I agree. So why pay vastly more when at present MPs get a very liveable wage, AND they get the kudos of representing their constituents? For any well-adjusted society, that's one hell of a package. If our parliamentary democracy was anything like healthy, this seems to me enough 'reward' for anyone.

The problem is, our institutions are not healthy, transparent, or acting in the interests of the general population. Instead, they appear to be heavily influenced by lobbyists, corporations, and press interests (among others).

So when people rightly fume about MPs allowances (note: not 'expenses') I wish that the debate widened to include the other ways in which MPs appear to seek to exploit their roles.

Some of the broader questions that I would like debated are these:

Should MPs take up non-executive directorships, when it seems likely to lead to almost certain conflict of interest?

By what mechanism did Tony Blair earn his job at JP Morgan (or Goldman Sachs), and what does this say about the influence of the financial sector on government? How can this be healthy?

In a first-past-the-post system, is the role of parliamentary parties (who need to raise funds) and their party whips (who police the MPs, often against their conscience) part of the problem of corruption and influence? After all, we elect our MPs to represent us, not their parties, don't we?

The wages don't need fixing so much as the system - but in a much more fundamental way than Ed Balls had in mind.

gtvlusso

Hazel Blears is looking like the crrokedest at the moment - cards marked I suspect!

tailwindhome

Surely the entire democratic process of the popular vote would need reformed if the objective is to recruit and retain the best people for the job.

Think about it. If your workplace got to vote for the senior positions would the most capable person be selected or would it be Dave from IT who's a right laugh.

The Chingford Skinhead

The major problem with paying MPs big salaries is that they are meant to represent the population. As it is almost none of them use trhe NHS or state schools because they can buy private so why should they (and they don't) care how poor the service is. If they all had to live off the average wage you'd see a vast iumprovement in all of our lives.

Oh but it won't attract the brains you cry. Politicians justify low wages in swaithes of the public sector because the jobs are "vocations". Well what higher vocation could there be than to serve your country. Higher wages will simply attract career politicians with no principles or morales - the likes of Mandleson and blair.

Christophe3967

linoue wrote:

I always thought that you get the politicians you deserve.

Most people in this country are too apathetic/stupid/ignorant/(insert adjective) to care about politics, hence we have politicians taking the p1ss.

With you up to a point here, but if we don't teach people the importance of democracy, we end up with the sort of quasi client state where people are disengaged through ignorance and dependance on the state. We are, arguably nearly there. So who's to blame for this, if we don't educate people?

Since the 1960s successive govts have progressively undermined the state education system (one of the failures of Thatcher's govt was that it did nothing to reverse the failed Mary Warnock experiment with comprehensive education) and since 1997, this govt has further undermined social mobility by measures such as removing the Assisted Places scheme, and introducing policies that restrict schools ability to determine the best strategies for their pupils.

We are failing to give an excellent education to cleverer children. We are failing to give a sound basic education to less able pupils, especially in deprived areas. We are failing to stimulate the social mobility that good education makes possible. Your educational chances, and your life chances, depend too much on where you live. The gap between the haves and have-nots continues to expand. That is the biggest indictment of a Labour govt I can think of.

The comprehensive educational system was meant to provide, in Harold Wilson's words, "grammar schools for all", and to lead to increased social mobility. It has done neither. It has not raised standards and we now have a less mobile society than in the 1950s and 1960s.

In effect, selection by ability has been replaced by selection by neighbourhood. That is neither sensible, nor egalitarian. Until we rid ourselves of this outworn dogma and explore practical ways of making our schools as good as we can, we can't expect to produce an electorate that is engaged in the democractic process. MPs stealing our money is inevitable, as the electorate haven't held them to account at the ballot box.

Don't expect anything to change, apart from the level of resentment felt by our 'honourable' members that they have been caught. Snouts in the trough? Not in their eyes.

Look, I didn't start this thread.

DonDaddyD

I cannot believe that some of you actually believe there is a correlation between money earned and the dedication, integrity and passion a person will have to run anything successfully.

I also cannot believe that some of you think that only people earning more than £x amount per year are competant enough (no one has yet mentioned qualifications, education or experience) to run the country or perform a job that aids running the Country successfully. I'd go as far as to that that is a little arrogant.

Finally £60K+ is alot of money. Why? Because the percentage of people earning that sort of money are in a minority in this country. The average is the amount most people earn (and it aint near £60K) and the below the national average wage will also show a smaller total number of people compared to the average. Just because some of you are lucky enough to see £60K+ doesn't negate the fact that in terms of salaries earned by the nation, its a lot of money. (Cycling and Class comes to mind again).

For the record I would rather see Doctors, Nurses and public services get more money for better facilities before seeing Politicians and senoir leaders get pay rises. But then I don't earn £60K and cannot afford private - I guess I'm one of the lazy morons....

I've witness a remuneration from £20,000 to £60,000 for the purpose of hiring a better calibre of candidate. This pompous bureaucratic buffon logic was 'weighed, considered and agreed' while services were being closed in a classic case of the few (in this case 1) outweighing the needs of the many.

The major problem with paying MPs big salaries is that they are meant to represent the population. As it is almost none of them use trhe NHS or state schools because they can buy private so why should they (and they don't) care how poor the service is. If they all had to live off the average wage you'd see a vast iumprovement in all of our lives.

Oh but it won't attract the brains you cry. Politicians justify low wages in swaithes of the public sector because the jobs are "vocations". Well what higher vocation could there be than to serve your country. Higher wages will simply attract career politicians with no principles or morales - the likes of Mandleson and blair.

Beautiful Post!!!

I've seen this first hand.

il_principe

Christophe3967 wrote:

linoue wrote:

I always thought that you get the politicians you deserve.

Most people in this country are too apathetic/stupid/ignorant/(insert adjective) to care about politics, hence we have politicians taking the p1ss.

With you up to a point here, but if we don't teach people the importance of democracy, we end up with the sort of quasi client state where people are disengaged through ignorance and dependance on the state. We are, arguably nearly there. So who's to blame for this, if we don't educate people?

Since the 1960s successive govts have progressively undermined the state education system (one of the failures of Thatcher's govt was that it did nothing to reverse the failed Mary Warnock experiment with comprehensive education) and since 1997, this govt has further undermined social mobility by measures such as removing the Assisted Places scheme, and introducing policies that restrict schools ability to determine the best strategies for their pupils.

We are failing to give an excellent education to cleverer children. We are failing to give a sound basic education to less able pupils, especially in deprived areas. We are failing to stimulate the social mobility that good education makes possible. Your educational chances, and your life chances, depend too much on where you live. The gap between the haves and have-nots continues to expand. That is the biggest indictment of a Labour govt I can think of.

The comprehensive educational system was meant to provide, in Harold Wilson's words, "grammar schools for all", and to lead to increased social mobility. It has done neither. It has not raised standards and we now have a less mobile society than in the 1950s and 1960s.

In effect, selection by ability has been replaced by selection by neighbourhood. That is neither sensible, nor egalitarian. Until we rid ourselves of this outworn dogma and explore practical ways of making our schools as good as we can, we can't expect to produce an electorate that is engaged in the democractic process. MPs stealing our money is inevitable, as the electorate haven't held them to account at the ballot box.

Don't expect anything to change, apart from the level of resentment felt by our 'honourable' members that they have been caught. Snouts in the trough? Not in their eyes.

Look, I didn't start this thread.

+1

Post of the day (non humorous category).

itboffin

G66 was last seen heading in the direction of Big Ben carrying a rifle shaped bag muttering something about i'll make them ALL pay :P

lost_in_thought

jashburnham wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

<snip>)

+1

Post of the day (non humorous category).

Agree!

I thought the abolition of the Assisted Place scheme particularly was utterly ridiculous, especially as the year it meant people had to leave the (public) school I was at due to its abolition was the same year the Laura Spence fiasco kicked off...

bigmat

I think there is a correlation between ability to do the job and amount you earn - we need to have people in government who are highly educated, and (unfortunately) that costs a lot of money. A lot of graduates are saddled with huge debts, so its a very real factor in career choice whether they'll be able to earn enough to pay off those debts. And beyond that, I don't think its unreasonable to make the best of the possibilities open to you financially, to have a better lifestyle and more security to bring up your family or whatever you want to do.

I certainly wasn't saying that nobody who earns less than £60k could do the job of an MP, just saying that limiting an MP's salary to that level is likely to deter a lot of competent people (or, as seems to happen, mean that those people look to make up the shortfall in dubious ways).

And its not just MPs, a lot of areas in the public sector struggle to attract the calibre of applicant they need - teachers, social workers, dentists etc.

shoulder_of_orion

As Christophe3967 has so eloquently put it, It is quite ironic that a government that originally came to power on the slogan "Education, Education, Education" have made such a shambolic hash of things.

It makes me furious, I have always been a big believer in state education and I have two children that I am now seriously pondering putting into private schools when they are a little older.