It was my understanding that being an MP is by tradition considered a part-time job and that MPs having professional interests outside politics are thought an essential benefit to democratic representation not an impediment to it. I'm more concerned by Ministerial moonlighting within Government. For example, I would have thought that being Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a sufficiently important and demanding job to take up all of George Osborne's time and attention, yet he and Mr Cameron seem to think it acceptable that he splits his time - presumably at tax-payer's expense - with being Conservative Party election strategist. It is debatable whether he'd perform either job any better on a full time basis, but as we're all paying him to be Chancellor I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and see him give it a try.
Nope but have spent 16 years with a company to get to just over £7 an hour while those coming into the company have the same hourly rate I was just saying that I bet I'm on less an hour than you
my place is treated like a freekin charity by some. c..k suckers, you are paid well down there, just victims of your success
It's all supply and demand. If people are willing to do a job at a low rate that's what employers will pay. And surely you should be more concerned about your own rate if pay rather than that awarded to other employees. If they earned less than you, would that make you happier? And if so why? Also, firms' duty to their employees comes second to their duty to their shareholders, or bottom line if they are a private company. That's the capitalist system. The only way to avoid it is to start your own business or work in the public sector, which works within different parameters on pay, largely governed by its ability to tempt high-quality staff away from the private sector.
I'm not going to stereotype Scots, Fin, but do you think your location has anything to do with your customers' unwillingness to pay you a decent rate? Also, as has been pointed out here, the "London premium" for pay doesn't go anywhere near compensating for the higher costs of living in the capital. People can move though so it's their choice. I stay because I don't believe I'd enjoy living in the countryside, or indeed live longer as many suggest would be the case. I would worry that living in the country would just make make my lifetime seem longer!!!!
Ah. Then that's where we differ fundamentally. My understanding is that being an MP is not a part-time job. I reckon it's more than a full-time job, if you're doing it properly. I hope you have been looking at "Inside the Commons" just to see what a demanding job it is. You will also have noticed how the debating chamber is normally pretty empty. I have put this down to MPs giving their time to more pressing and worthwhile concerns connected with their MP's jobs. I have not put it down to people not having the time to show up because they are working for someone else. £67k is not a part-time salary. When you think of all the reading you have to do, the discussions, the committees, the debates, the constituency work etc etc, how could you possibly hope to get that done and still have time for a second job, and for your family, and some leisure time? Makes no sense.
nah most of my customers are loaded self employed dudes,lawyers, doctors that don't like to pay. self employment is big up here, that and people think they can book in get a pile of work, preferably done yesterday or sooner then tell you once the works completed they don't get paid for a month. but to be fair up until two days ago no one has screwed me, same for all trades really. mind M.P. employ office staff and have party organization to cover most of the mundane stuff. guess there just a face to represent an ideology and turn up for question time and policy votes, looking at the debates not many turn up for that. feckum. deffo paid to much
I assume that MPs from Government and Opposition still pair up, for voting (or rather, non-voting) purposes?
Most MPs have to do all the tasks you mention - constituency work, chamber debates, committees, correspondence - but in addition about 80 of them have ministerial jobs in government as well, which are extremely demanding. Hundreds more are trying to write books, initiate campaigns, carry out roles in their party, publish columns in newspapers. Many have careers as doctors, dentists, barristers, and other professions which they must maintain as they might otherwise be out of a job at the next election. Not to mention the constant scrutiny, and the constant personal criticism and abuse, which every MP is subjected to. MPs have hardly any time left for their families, let alone for leisure. Most get burned out in a few years by the extreme levels of stress. There are very few people whose characters are so strong and whose commitment is so great that they are able to sustain this kind of lifestyle for decades on end.
I have no idea but your un-necessarily cryptic reply would imply that you do not own your own home and you do not rent privately so I can only assume that you live on someones sofa or in a bus stop? The reason I say two bedrooms is because I think it is quite reasonable and definitely not 'glitzy' for people to expect a standard of living that includes more than a shared kitchen/main room and a single bedroom in a house. It's not a big ask but to have more than in London whilst renting or to get a mortgage for such a dwelling requires earning something like the £67k that this thread and the media story implies is a salary that these senior politicians should be happy with. I think it's pretty reasonable that a highly experienced government figure believes he should be living in more than a small flat (as I do). You've choosen a career path that doesn't pay well because it's what you love and I've got a lot of respect for that but it doesn't mean you should think everyone else should consider this acceptable. I'm sure (and hope) that both yourself and the journalists creating this story are clever enough to realise that fact, so I can only surmise that this whole story has been manufactured and angled to sell papers at the politicians expense which in my opinion puts these journalists on the same level as any politicians that really are corrupt.
Pairs don't apply for votes on three line whip matters obviously. But for ordinary routine matters, yes the pairing system still works.
nope, liberal in lochaber, charles kennidy ,not for much longer tho. shame really as a person i like him
Don't forget that C4 was involved too and therefore, by association, the BBC so no paper sales at issue there. And as Glid pointed out the amount of money you need is largely dictated by age. You'd think Rifkind and Straw - at 71 - would be reasonably well set up, with mortgages on their multiple homes paid off. So I can only assume that if £67k isn't enough they must have bad coke habits or feel the need to leave a huge financial legacy - as that arch-Socialist Tony Benn did - to their undeserving offspring. His son Hilary is even on the Westminster gravy train. If you look at TB's will it is most informative. Not a penny to good causes or political affiliations. All to his children. Not saying that's wrong but it does mark him out as a bit if a hypocrite in my book. He inherited wealth, made more money from his employment by the state and kept it in the family, effectively privatising cash that could have been used for the greater good. Doesn't really sit well with the views he espoused dies it? Did I hear the word hypocrite? Also there is an alternative to sofas and bus stops if one cannot afford to rent privately if you think about it. As I said, never assume anything.
Good point, although my opinion remains the same to the people involved in the production; paper sales, number of bods watching the TV, much the same thing. It's bottom grade Daily Mail style journalism made worse by trying to imply unrealistic opinions that the makers know not to be true and that the wider population that doesn't live in London will go along with. At least if they suckered someone in the same situation saying 'it's unrealistic for me to live on £250,000 blah blah...' then they would have a point. What ever happened to journalists trying to take some kind of lead and educate rather than take cheap shots that distract from the real issues in the country and the world? People obviously love controversy and narrow minded stories about their neighbors but it's depressing that so little of the media try to rise above this. Even the broad sheets seem to ape their tabloid equivalents these days
There are in fact 2 themes to this story which we are forgetting. 1. MPs and even government ministers seem to find time for a second, or multiple jobs, which doesn't sit well with electors who think that they should be spending their time working for the people who elected them and for which they are in full-time employment. 2. Conflicts of interest: You don't want powerful people working on hidden agendas and being paid to represent views for which they have not been democratically elected. How would anyone, to take a hypothetical example, be expected to maintain an open mind on fracking, if he was being paid on the side by an oil company? Would you expect them to be closing tax loopholes if they were on Price Waterhouse Coopers' payroll? The second consideration seems to me more important than the first, but both are worth flagging up and papers are doing a valuable job in doing so. That is sort of what an independent media is supposed to do.
I hoped that I could imply your last point by simply bringing the story to esteemed members' attention - rather than risking arousing further personal antipathy by stating it overtly. So thank you for doing so. Although if you look back through the posts some have suggested that the journalists who exposed this double-income pair were "no better than those they are exposing", which amazes me!
lets be honest, very few of us are any different, we all scratch each others back when required, the problem starts when the pot accuses the kettle.
