Friday 17th July 2015
Posted: Fri 17 Jul, 2015 7:13 am
Morning all.
Two of Her Majesty’s Inspectors visited the school on 11 June 2015 to gather additional evidence
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
How many pre election pledges will they not honour / break? We've already had the rail upgrades, fracking in national parks, SSSIs and under aquifers, and now this.Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw 6m6 minutes ago
Tories to break pre election pledge to cap care home fees because of the growing funding crisis in social care, today's @FT reports
I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
In principle I have no problems with moving money from their expenses to salary. The big problem I have is that the rest of the public sector is frozen, nurses get a recommended increase and we don't have enough money, but they can't do anything about this.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Hello.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Very sensible. Umunna really does need to accept that Labour supporters have moved left and be prepared to meet them there. Oh sorry, he means the idiots who just voted Tory. Well, Labour could meet them where they are, but the spectacle of the two main parties fighting over the votes of less than a quarter of the eligible voting population would be a very sad indictment of our democracy. And also a fight Labour would lose."We're running around stamping our feet, screaming at the electorate when ultimately what we need to do is meet people where they are at, not necessarily where we would want them to be," he said.
They'd probably try to take the government (themselves) to court on a human rights basis if they were only provided with authorised MPs digs ... loss of right to privacy, enjoyment of family life. We may think this is fanciful ... but I think their inbuilt hypocrisy, lack of self awareness and overweening sense of entitlement trumps common sense and decency for a fair few of them.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .David Cameron backs MPs’ 10% pay rise as ‘the rate for the job’
Prime minister makes surprise U-turn after previously describing increase – at time of 1% cap for public sector workers – as ‘simply unacceptable’ (Guardian)
Maybe fewer MPs, SH, but not as much as you're suggesting; I favour a completely new approach involving PR with greater localism, splitting representation between constituency and national executives. I haven't time to portray my vision just now but haven't really thought it through. Perhaps it's time I did.SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
Mind you, there really is not that much work to do being an MP. Look at how much legislation is passed in a year: next to nothing. They do a lot of 'constituency work' nowadays, but they are pretty ineffectual at that. The average Labour MP has zero influence over central government and so can do precisely bugger all to help, other than give advice (which in most cases an expert such as a lawyer would be better qualified to give).
The only reason for having so many is to insure that a government has enough warm bodies to fill all the roles it needs. Both the Tories and Labour are shockingly poor when you cream off the top 100 most able in their ranks.
Was it him that likened the parts of the party he's not keen on as behaving like 'petulant children'? Totally unhelpful. It just reinforces the perception that many have of a number of 'top' Labour MPs who have real disdain for the views of the membership that don't fit with their own.Willow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33561504Very sensible. Umunna really does need to accept that Labour supporters have moved left and be prepared to meet them there. Oh sorry, he means the idiots who just voted Tory. Well, Labour could meet them where they are, but the spectacle of the two main parties fighting over the votes of less than a quarter of the eligible voting population would be a very sad indictment of our democracy. And also a fight Labour would lose."We're running around stamping our feet, screaming at the electorate when ultimately what we need to do is meet people where they are at, not necessarily where we would want them to be," he said.
Wish she wasn't a Tory.Sarah Wollaston MP @sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC
But this is exactly what we need at the moment, rebecca, Tory MPs opposing the government line. Cameron and Osborne are dangerous if allowed free reign.rebeccariots2 wrote:Wish she wasn't a Tory.Sarah Wollaston MP @sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC
The main reason is that if you don't pay them properly you get two categories of people doing itmikems wrote:Why should MPs get more pay?
Yes, you're right utopian. I thought about it just after I pressed submit ... and came to a similar conclusion. That one of their own - who is pretty widely respected - calls them out on this rubbish, on their vindictiveness - is probably more effective. (It's certainly more than just about every former coalition Lib Dem MP did ...)utopiandreams wrote:But this is exactly what we need at the moment, rebecca, Tory MPs opposing the government line. Cameron and Osborne are dangerous if allowed free reign.rebeccariots2 wrote:Wish she wasn't a Tory.Sarah Wollaston MP @sarahwollaston 17m17 minutes ago
Slashing BBC income to the point of fatally diminishing its output would undermine the case for its existence. No thanks! I #BackTheBBC
There were far too many then as well.mikems wrote:
As for the number of MPs, there is a new idea that there are too many of them. But there are no more of them now than there were 150 years ago. So why should there be fewer MPs? With an increasing population we need more representatives, not fewer.
I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
Not sure you can compare the two given that States have far greater powers than anything we have as an equivalent. Add the representatives that individual States have as well and then see what the numbers are.SpinningHugo wrote: Other countries have smaller numbers. The US Senate has 400 odd, for a country six times as big.
The pressure is in the wrong place. Cameron shouldn't be under pressure to ignore the independent recommendation for MPs pay, he should be under pressure to accept the independent recommendation for nurses pay.SpinningHugo wrote:The main reason is that if you don't pay them properly you get two categories of people doing itmikems wrote:Why should MPs get more pay?
(i) the independently wealthy. The Tories are made up of people like this. Without a decent salary, people with Conservative attitudes don't want to be MPs.That has already changed the kind of people being Tory MPs for the worse. They used t be able to supplement their income in other ways (eg the Bar) but that has gone.
(ii) ideologues who don't mind living in a garret.
We don't pay them enough, and for decades everytime there has been a pay rise suggested it has been vetoed on the basis of "we can't do this at the same time as there are cuts to [insert whatever is being cut at that time.]" Cameron is taking a political hit for doing this, but now is the time to do it.
I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
D.H. Lawrencerebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...
Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
I could imagine Burnham being a teacher in the school in Barry Hines "A Kestral for a Knave". Teaching maths maybe?rebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...
Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
No, no, no no noooooo.citizenJA wrote:D.H. Lawrencerebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...
Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
It's not really about the Commons though (IMHO) - the executive, who are now making the rules, are most definitely 'poshos' - where are the 'Trots'? Dennis Skinner, maybe? Even Jeremy Corbyn, possibly....not going to get anywhere near actual power though - they've been kept away from that for a long time - they might actually do something useful with it.utopiandreams wrote:I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
It might work just to make them sit in a room and 'do the math' as their wonderful leaders in the US would say....my personal preference would be to make everyone who supports cuts to Social Security, live for 3 months claiming Social Security (with no access to anything else)...as we saw from Porta-loo, 7 days is obviously nowhere near long enough.yahyah wrote:I wonder if this Tory MP has ever pondered the same for people who lose their jobs, become sick or have to care for disabled relatives, or are forced to pay the bedroom tax ?
'I never expected to be watching the pennies at my age and yet this is what I have to' - meet the Tory minister whose £67k salary wasn't enough
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 94440.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I partially agree, Wolfie. If there were a separate executive has to be guided from below and not just answerable. The LibDems in coalition for example completely countered that, issuing executive directives rather than following their membership however they portray themselves. I do like Dennis and Jeremy though, but notice AB has spoken of localism and building power from the ground up.Lonewolfie wrote:It's not really about the Commons though (IMHO) - the executive, who are now making the rules, are most definitely 'poshos' - where are the 'Trots'? Dennis Skinner, maybe? Even Jeremy Corbyn, possibly....not going to get anywhere near actual power though - they've been kept away from that for a long time - they might actually do something useful with it.utopiandreams wrote:I would have said extremists rather than Trots, though.SpinningHugo wrote:... I don't really want a Commons made up of poshos and Trots, and so we have to pay.
Another measure they rushed through - and the Lib Dems allowed - which has come back on them.High court rules data retention and surveillance legislation unlawful
Victory for Tory MP David Davis and Labour’s Tom Watson, who said there were insufficient privacy safeguards, as judges find Dripa inconsistent with EU law
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... d-unlawful" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They all - well mostly - seem so far away from the real conditions that most people find themselves experiencing and working in. Yesterday Radio 4 had an item on the petrol station attendants who have their wages docked if people drive away without paying for their petrol ... yes, there are companies actually doing that (and it's illegal apparently). One young lad has his wages docked most months - there is nothing he can do about it - to the tune of about £200. His normal take home pay for a full time month is £1000 - minus the amount of unpaid for petrol the company decides he has to shoulder responsibility for.mikems wrote:The idea that MPs should be paid more is nothing more or less than received wisdom nowadays, accepted as common sense because so often repeated as if it is common sense. But there are never any proper, valid reasons advanced that chime with democratic principles.
We should, as democrats, be demanding our representatives come from the people, elected from among our equals, not special people selected for their special ability and deserving of special rewards.
It is a career option now, not just for tories (it has always been a career move for them) but for our own side too. And that rots democracy and creates an unrepresentative caste of professionals who demand better pay for themselves to reward their specialness.
Let's have some ideas for the progressive reform of democracy so that it is more inclusive, less distanced from us and something that constantly needs to be reformed to deepen and widen it.
Pay them less. Make their job description so watertight that they can have no other earnings. Cut off all the grace and favour stuff.utopiandreams wrote:@mikems
Another question is how to disincentivise the status seekers and charlatans from standing. I may be guilty of blaming the electorate for choosing them but the party selects those that stand.
For some reason I'm consciously unaware of, I immediately thought of D.H. Lawrence's, "St. Mawr", after reading your post.rebeccariots2 wrote:No, no, no no noooooo.citizenJA wrote:D.H. Lawrencerebeccariots2 wrote:I have been idly trying to enliven the Labour leadership contest for myself by imagining which author / novel each of the candidates' 'narratives' (sorry, sorry) and characteristics might be imagined into ...
Have just had flights of fancy about Burnham and the gritty northern realism authors he might go with (I think we can count Alan Bennett out). I had thought Alan Sillitoe but then looked him up on Wikipedia and thought maybe not. Any thoughts?
RogerOThornhill wrote:Not sure you can compare the two given that States have far greater powers than anything we have as an equivalent. Add the representatives that individual States have as well and then see what the numbers are.SpinningHugo wrote: Other countries have smaller numbers. The US Senate has 400 odd, for a country six times as big.
Also, not sure how Tories could get away with reducing the size of the HoC without reducing the numbers on the government payroll, and while increasing the size of the House of Lords (another 50 Tory peers wasn't it?)
If this as a consequence causes greater individual voter registration then great. I look forward to the advertising campaign at peak times to push IVR btw, a bit like help to buy....mikems wrote:According to the Star, Corbyn has taken the lead in constituency party nominations, 49 to Burnham's 48, with Cooper on 33 and Kendall on 5.
Gaining a lot of support from students, apparently, who are registering 'in droves' to vote for him.
Unless we move to a fully federal system (which there is an argument for) then 250 MPs is far too low.SpinningHugo wrote:I agree with that. I also think we need far fewer of them. A Parliament of around 250 would be more than enough. Pay them £150k+ each.utopiandreams wrote:I lean toward better pay with fewer expense allowances, PorFavor, which I believe are the real scandal, particularly the second home allowance. MPs should be provided Olympic village style accommodation for parliamentary business (just another wasted resource or missed opportunity of the last government). I'm sure our usually right-wing press would approve, they'd have much more material for their salacious village gossip column.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Yes. Really surprising, that . . . .
Mind you, there really is not that much work to do being an MP. Look at how much legislation is passed in a year: next to nothing. They do a lot of 'constituency work' nowadays, but they are pretty ineffectual at that. The average Labour MP has zero influence over central government and so can do precisely bugger all to help, other than give advice (which in most cases an expert such as a lawyer would be better qualified to give).
The only reason for having so many is to insure that a government has enough warm bodies to fill all the roles it needs. Both the Tories and Labour are shockingly poor when you cream off the top 100 most able in their ranks.
I understand how you feel.seeingclearly wrote:Pay them less. Make their job description so watertight that they can have no other earnings. Cut off all the grace and favour stuff.utopiandreams wrote:@mikems
Another question is how to disincentivise the status seekers and charlatans from standing. I may be guilty of blaming the electorate for choosing them but the party selects those that stand.
I'm in a haircuts for the well to do mood. Have just read a story about Doritos on a day when 1. We find out that we are de facto committed to military action in Syria, and 2. MPs will be getting that 10% more while people with mobility issues are losing their independence.
I should say good morning graciously, but my mood is too far in the wrong direction, and I'm very grumpy with the world today, so you'll have to assume that some compassionate balance will be restored at some point and I'll hope the day gets better for everyone. Including our lovely Ohso's. (If the apostrophe is superfluous please blame it on my bad (private) education. I really can't decide whether it is or isn't.) Anyway, I hope they are both coping with today and that things go well.
I'm pretty sure there was talk among some Tories - some of whom might actually now be ministers - about reducing the size of government and combining or abolishing some departments.AnatolyKasparov wrote: Not least because it means the "payroll vote" would be even more dominant than now - even if the size of *that* is reduced, as it should be.
These CLP nominations don't actually mean very much tbh. That is one reason why the JC campaign is targeting them successfully.mikems wrote:According to the Star, Corbyn has taken the lead in constituency party nominations, 49 to Burnham's 48, with Cooper on 33 and Kendall on 5.
Gaining a lot of support from students, apparently, who are registering 'in droves' to vote for him.