• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

P.D. said:
Not sure why his wife needs to be gifted new clothes either, sounds like they're all on the gravy train just like anyone in power over the course of history. Sue Gray getting paid more than the PM isn't a good look either.
Click to expand...
Every school head master gets paid more than the PM. Its just a thing here that all politicians get paid low salaries (in exchange for post-job memoirs and speaking gigs etc)
 
Paying politicians low is just a way to protect those jobs for the thick kids of rich families. The ones who traditionally got sent into the church or military

It prices out the bright but not wealthy, while the rich and not-too-thick find easier better paid work
 
Personally, i think MPs (at least the main mp, the Prime Minister) are paid too low.
I'd rather less but more bright/capable MPs.

Trouble for the electorate these days: who would now take the hassle of becoming an MP with all the media scrutiny on nonsense it entails?
Almost certainly not the brightest and best; and those who would be attracted in, when you consider the salary and media scrutiny etc, why wouldn't you use it to feather the nest of your next job on the board of a company you lobbied for/changed the rules to help?

Moi? Cynical? :D
 
glorygloryeze said:
Personally, i think MPs (at least the main mp, the Prime Minister) are paid too low.
I'd rather less but more bright/capable MPs.

Trouble for the electorate these days: who would now take the hassle of becoming an MP with all the media scrutiny on nonsense it entails?
Almost certainly not the brightest and best; and those who would be attracted in, when you consider the salary and media scrutiny etc, why wouldn't you use it to feather the nest of your next job on the board of a company you lobbied for/changed the rules to help?

Moi? Cynical? :D
Click to expand...

I think they all fall into one of two camps, those inspired to get involved from a single issue they are passionate about and then expand from there.

And narcissists.
 
Baleforce said:
I think they all fall into one of two camps, those inspired to get involved from a single issue they are passionate about and then expand from there.

And narcissists.
Click to expand...

You just have to look at the US to see what happens when it becomes really lucrative. Almost all of them are various degrees of sociopaths and narcissists, especially those who's found a safe district. You can't get rid of them even if their family is financially secure for generations to come and they don't give a brick about doing their actual job instead of fundraisers, networking and vacationing.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I'm not particularly surprised about that, as I imagine there are a few senior civil servants who would earn more than the PM. Appreciate she's now working for the Labour party but she was unlikely to take a significant drop in pay to do so.
There is a more general question of whether we pay roles such as PM enough.
Click to expand...
The role of PM is definitely underpaid, although there is the argument that they all make an absolute fortune on the memoirs/speech circuit once they leave office.

Edit: with apologies to @Gutter Boy; just saw his post above.
 
How would a means test model work though? Could we get to the point where we have to declare everything financial about ourselves. Today, the best indication is HMRC as they know by individual what tax is paid. That is individual, not household though.

My guess is that most of this population can't even build a consolidated view of what they're worth themselves and they're the ones that have the information on salaries, pensions, savings, house values / mortgages etc.

Even if it becomes possible with technology and interoperability, what changes? Do some people stop getting things like state pensions? Do some people have to pay for medical treatment, whereas others don't?

Whilst some of this makes sense to me, we don't want to drift too far away from capitalism. We could also see people with money just picking it all up and moving elsewhere.
 
Muttley said:
How would a means test model work though? Could we get to the point where we have to declare everything financial about ourselves. Today, the best indication is HMRC as they know by individual what tax is paid. That is individual, not household though.

My guess is that most of this population can't even build a consolidated view of what they're worth themselves and they're the ones that have the information on salaries, pensions, savings, house values / mortgages etc.

Even if it becomes possible with technology and interoperability, what changes? Do some people stop getting things like state pensions? Do some people have to pay for medical treatment, whereas others don't?

Whilst some of this makes sense to me, we don't want to drift too far away from capitalism. We could also see people with money just picking it all up and moving elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Universal basic income. Everyone gets a state salary that covers modest (but all) housing, food and energy costs (children get half the adult amount). Anything over and above they earn they can improve their lifestyle.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Universal basic income. Everyone gets a state salary that covers modest (but all) housing, food and energy costs (children get half the adult amount). Anything over and above they earn they can improve their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Not understanding. Where does the money come from to fund that? It would need to be a massive shift of industry back to the public sector. I guess the tax system as we know it today would radically need to change as well. Salaries would need to come down massively as well to remove the bit that the governments is covering.
 
Muttley said:
Not understanding. Where does the money come from to fund that? It would need to be a massive shift of industry back to the public sector. I guess the tax system as we know it today would radically need to change as well. Salaries would need to come down massively as well to remove the bit that the governments is covering.
Click to expand...
The profits of automated production, the profits of our national natural resources, and because things like benefits, much government/council bureaucracy and childcare costs will become obsolete.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The profits of automated production, the profits of our national natural resources, and because things like benefits, much government/council bureaucracy and childcare costs will become obsolete.
Click to expand...

UBI is currently a pipedream. And it's not something I'm closed to completely because part of me thinks that it is inevitable that at some future date most meaningful work is carried out by AI. However, pretty much all the UBI experiments that have been conducted recently across the globe have ended in failure and certainly I think UBI remains as a card we will need to pull in a future work-place society dominated by non-humans as opposed to something that can improve human life/living standards in the current world
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
So Starmer has taken more in free gifts then any other MP since 2019.
Click to expand...
This isn't true.

Starmer has DECLARED £107k in free gifts since becoming leader in 2019 so about £20k per year.

Boris didn't declare his gifts, he tried to hide them; Boris received a gift larger than £107k just to redecorate his flat, so you can bet he received WAY more than Starmer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back