UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion

I thought we needed a place for those spiky arguments that sometimes take over the Good Morning thread.

How about the "Take it outside" thread?

Be careful what you say in here.

As David Cameron said only the other day, just because you aren't breaking the law it doesn't mean you're safe.

I was completely shocked by that comment from Cameron.

Dunno if a take it outside thread will work but go ahead.

Think about how many teachers have had their careers and even worse their lives ruined by false accusations. They were 'judged' and found guilty by public opinion.

Or look at the election campaign where 'tax avoidance' was treated by the Labour party as being the same as 'tax evasion.'

The old attitude that the law was for the defence of the individual has a lot to recommend it

Patti - we can but try.

I too thought that was a weird thing for Cameron to say. I think I know what he meant, but it does seem to part of a slippery slope that says "to hell with the law we'll lock you up if we don't agree with you".

Very odd.

The idea of a 'take it outside' thread is obviously ridiculous.
Is this the right place to say that? ;-)

BJ - we might need a "take it even further outside" thread for discussions that we want to bump from the "take it outside" thread...

Just about every forum on the internet could do with a 'take it outside' thread. It's amazing how the most innocuous of chats suddenly turn ratty.

B J wrote: "Just about every forum on the internet could do with a 'take it outside' thread. It's amazing how the most innocuous of chats suddenly turn ratty."

Really? Wanna fight about that idea?

Will wrote: "Patti - we can but try.

I too thought that was a weird thing for Cameron to say. I think I know what he meant, but it does seem to part of a slippery slope that says "to hell with the law we'll lo..."

I'm not sure that Cameron knew what he meant! But then, I never am with him. (Except when he says 'Vote for me')

Oh! And I thought it was going to be about gardening - or reading outside. This will probably be my only comment here!

I imagine that this thread will be useful for two types of people....

The argumentative sort who like a good tussle and those who don't want the good morning thread hijacked by politics, sport or speculation about whether Daniel Craig is going to be in Star Wars VII.

If it works, I'd expect to see comments in the good morning thread along the lines of "Oi! Stop it, you two. Take it outside."

Patti (baconater) wrote: "I was completely shocked by that comment from Cameron."

Of course, you could always read the rest of the quote, not just the bit that has been taken out of context:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

With the proviso of course that he is a politician and therefore if his mouth is moving, he is lying.

I don't see how the rest of the speech changes anything.

When you look at the snooper's charter, the cutbacks to legal aid, and the changes to the judicial review process, Cameron's comments are a cause for concern.

Michael Cargill wrote: "When you look at the snooper's charter, the cutbacks to legal aid, and the changes to the judicial review process, Cameron's comments are a cause for concern."

Yes, there are. Like I said, he is a politician.

Not a very good one, but still a politician and therefore not to be believed or trusted.

Always count the spoons.

Michael Cargill wrote: "I don't see how the rest of the speech changes anything.

When you look at the snooper's charter, the cutbacks to legal aid, and the changes to the judicial review process, Cameron's comments are a..."

And of course scrapping the HRA. The Courts are ordinary people's bulwark against the Cabinet (of whatever complextion)

The courts, the press, the unions, the political parties; we need them all.
At the moment we need a strong labour party. We suffered because a collapse of the conservative party meant Blair had no proper opposition. Now we need a really good Labour leader who can talk to ordinary voters.

I don't like or dislike Chuka Umunna but frankly I'm glad he's stepped down. Otherwise labour would just have had another rich kid from London leading them. If you want to vote for rich kids from london, shouldn't you have to vote tory?

David - there is no spoon.

Jim wrote: "If you want to vote for rich kids from london, shouldn't you have to vote tory? ..."

What? You can vote for people who aren't rich? We don't allow that here in the U.S.

Did someone say Daniel Craig is gonna be in Star Wars?
Sorry, its late and I jest. Carry on.

David - it's the politics trap.

We want our politicians to have lots of positive qualities. We want them to be intelligent, good leaders, good at communicating, excellent listeners, networks, strong orators.

We don't want to elect fools.

That generally means that our politicians will be drawn from people with good educations. That often means people from a privileged background who can afford to send their kids to the better schools.

A career in politics can be expensive, so that usually means that politicians have an independent income to support then through their early years.

If our politicians come to politics via business, then it is highly likely that they will have been successful in business. Because the same qualities that we look for in a good politician are also what you need to succeed in business.

All of this means that our politicians are likely to have had good educations, they may have had wealthy parents and/or will have been successful in business.

We then despise our politicians for having exactly the same qualities that we expect them to have.

In the UK at least, we pay our politicians more than the average wage but far less than a person with these qualities would earn in the real world. Which means that it is very difficult for a person without an independent means of support to be a politician.

And then we complain about it.

Will wrote: "David - there is no spoon."

Shhh.

They'll hear.

Will wrote: "And then we complain about it. "

That's the fun part.

Actually Will I don't despise our politicians for having those qualities. The ones I despise (and it certainly isn't all of them, by the way) I do so because they are unpleasant people with absolutely no compassion. And a lot of them that is BECAUSE of their privileged background where they have started near the top of the ladder and have no idea what goes on below them.
And complaining about them is good fun ;)

I agree with Rosemary on that, private education or health treatment being one point, they had the benefit, but then try to deny others the same.
I can't post on this thread, as its take it outside, my I pad has just told me it's too hot so I've got to take it inside! (We're on holiday)

It never fails to amaze me how Labour want to remove the House of Lords because of its privilege and yet they are creating their own dynasties within the Party's boundaries - the Benns, the Kinnocks and others.

Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "It never fails to amaze me how Labour want to remove the House of Lords because of its privilege and yet they are creating their own dynasties within the Party's boundaries - the Benns, the Kinnock..."

well think of all the grammar school boys who pulled the ladder up after them by bringing in comprehensive schools

The wages for an MP may not be as high as in commerce but the expenses are not negligible! How did Blair amass all his wealth? But why if it's not well paid do prospective candidates go through the hell of the campaign etc. it's much easier to get a job through an interview process than scrapping for a seat. Please don't tell me they want to serve the public, just don't.

Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "The wages for an MP may not be as high as in commerce but the expenses are not negligible! How did Blair amass all his wealth? But why if it's not well paid do prospective candidates go through ..."

I'm pretty sure Blair earned his wealth working as a cook at a Wimpy's. He'd been working there awhile until one day this fellow who looked a lot like Peter Cook came in and, next thing you know, Blair is a well-heeled and successful politician.

I always used to say that I aspired to earn as much per annum as Tony Blair used to spend on his summer holiday when he was PM

Blair earned far less as PM than he would have done in almost any other area of business.

He made most of his money on the back of having been the PM - selling books, giving advice, after dinner speeches. In other words, from people who were prepared to pay him directly for what he had to say. Very little of his fortune came from the tax payer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/polit...

With a few exceptions, successful people earn more than unsuccessful people. It would be a topsy-turvy world if it was any other way.

The deception here is that the PM's and MP's published salaries have been kept artificially low so they don't seem to be too much higher than the average wage. To compensate for this, the PM and MPs make money from other sources - eg expenses, after dinner speeches and books.

There are downsides of being a politician - being constantly on display, having to work long hours, needing to work in Parliament and in a constituency which could be hundreds of miles away. Oh, and facing the risk of being sacked every five years.

But if we want good politicians we need to be prepared to pay them a realistic salary for the sorts of skills and attributes we expect them to have.

And there I was thinking Mrs. B had been frugal with the housekeeping. Sorry boys but no amount of after dinner speaking generates that much.

The prospect of being sacked every five years? Show me a job that has tenure these days.
And the average wage is £488 per week (March this year). That is quite substantially less than the £67,000 salary of an MP.

He charges up to £190,000 for after dinner speeches and lectures. He once earned £400k for two half hour speeches.

The PM's annual salary now is £140k.

I don't know why people get so hung up about the PM's salary. It really is a red herring.

Will wrote: "The deception here is that the PM's and MP's published salaries have been kept artificially low so they don't seem to be too much higher than the average wage. "

Sorry Will, you are well off the beam there. MP's salary £67,000, Average wage £26,000.

Perhaps what we should do is force MPs to live on the average wage and to link their salary to it. You also have to remove any outside monies by putting them into a trust that they can then receive when they leave Parliament. I think we would soon see a great deal of motivation for schemes that raise the average wage.

There are downsides of being a politician - being constantly on display, having to work long hours, needing to work in Parliament and in a constituency which could be hundreds of miles away. Oh, and facing the risk of being sacked every five years.

With all respect, MPs are aware of this when they take the job. I work away from home a lot (300 miles away in one case). I accept these roles in the certain knowledge that I will not see my family till the weekend. Furthermore, a great deal of my weekend is involved in dealing with paperwork to sustain my company.

MPs expenses are considerably higher than those for the self employed - for example I get 45 pence per mile for the first 10,000 miles travelled and 25 pence a mile after that. MPs get 75 pence per mile for every mile they travel by car. My expenses come out of my profits, their expenses are paid in addition to their salaries.

There are also huge benefits to being an MP. There are eight bars and 23 points of sale for meals and snacks. You should also remember that there is no tax of food and drink in Westminster, so those costs are considerably lower than those outside of the Palace. (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...)


They get office expenses, including Office running costs, Staffing costs, Travel: staff. Centrally purchased stationery, Postage costs, Central IT costs and Communications Allowance.

Additionally, they get allowances for staying away from their main home, Travel: car, Travel: rail, Travel: bike,
Travel: European.

MPs receive severance pay when they lose an election or leave parliament with a minimal lump sum of £30,000.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries...

Then there is elevation to the House of Lords and outside "consultancy" work.

It seems to me that practically everyone who thinks they should be an MP is, almost by definition, the sort of person we don't want in Parliament. On the other hand, the people we really need wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole.

Douglas Adams had the right idea with the man in the hut.

Geoff

The MP's salary of £67,000 is below what a comparable manager in the private sector would earn. Comparing it against the average salary is pointless. That would be like comparing a brain surgeon's salary to that of a milkman.

Force MPs salary to that of the average wage? What would that achieve except to reduce the number and quality of people who would be prepared to be MPs?

If we want talented people to be our politicians, we have to be prepared to pay a reasonable salary relative to what they could earn elsewhere.

Actually, I think the snarky comments we were making were not about the PM's salary but, indeed, about that money Blair made on the side. It is true, of course, that successful people earn more than unsuccessful people. On a side note, successful criminals tend to get away with it, while their unsuccessful counterparts don't.

Will wrote: "Blair earned far less as PM than he would have done in almost any other area of business.

..."

He wasn't in business, he was a barrister and reputedly not one of the better ones, he'd have probably made about the same money as MP but not the sort he's made since

Will

MPs were not paid at all until 1911, bearing in mind that some of our greatest statemen, including Peel, Wilberforce, Gladstone and Disreali received no payment for their posts. None of our current MPs could hold a candle to these men who led this country during its greatest times. Since we have paid our MPs we have been in decline. Perhaps that is not a coincidence.

And despite your protestations, there was never a shortage of good men to stand for election. Perhaps if we stopped paying them we would get statesmen and stateswomen once again.

Oh BJ, you've read my thoughts again, and Geoff that is exactly how the local councils have gone. They used to have expenses only, now it's a career and a well paid one.

Indeed back at the birth of democracy, it was the voters who were paid, not the politicians :-)

But on a more serious note, I think we ought to go back to parliament meeting in the afternoons and probably fewer days a week.
It isn't as if we need more legislation and making attendance ostentatiously part time would mean that the MPs would have a chance to spend more time in their constituencies outside the Westminster bubble. Indeed I think that MPs should live in their constituencies, not merely rent a house there

Unpaid politicians? You're joking, right?

So to support themselves they would need another source of income. That might come from sponsorships (threatening their neutrality) or wealthy parents (giving the conservatives an electoral advantage) or their own businesses (giving them little time to be MPs) or Trades Union support (which could force them to vote for things the Unions wanted).

In other words, you would be turning the clock back to a time when only the wealthy could afford to be MPs. When there were no women in Parliament. No-one representing the workers. No young people.

I can understand looking back on the past through rose-coloured glasses, but come on, let's try to be realistic. If we had unpaid politicians you might stop moaning about MPs pay but you would soon start moaning about the kind of politician you would get instead.

Jim - MPs are elected to represent their constituents in Parliament. So they divide their time between their constituency (hearing people's problems and wishes) and Parliament (trying to make changes to help their constituents).

Most MPs would say that they want more opportunities in Parliament to represent their constituents, not fewer.

There are many improvements that could be made to Parliament. I don't think that reducing the hours it sits is one of them.

Yeah, I'd rather not go back to how things were in the 19th century tbh...

'Most MPs would say that they want more opportunities in Parliament to represent their constituents, not fewer.'
Do you have any evidence for that Will? I suspect that the opposite is the case and that most MPs would say that they need more time in their constituency where they can influence local decision makers and convey many concerns to Ministers quite adequately by email/phone.
I think most would welcome cutting Parliament to, say, three days a week and reducing the length of the periods when Parliament doesn't sit.

I've met quite a few MPs, Councillors and Government Ministers. A common theme from nearly all of them is that they would want more opportunities to make real changes for their constituents. That includes asking questions at the various question times, sitting on select committees, introducing amendments to Bills, lobbying Ministers and Government departments. They can do some of this by email, but a lot has to be done face to face.

MPs actually have relatively little opportunities to lobby local decision-makers. Most local authorities don't integrate MPs formally into their decision-making processes.

Many MPs would welcome reducing the hours when Parliament sits, particularly the late night sessions which are a nightmare for someone with childcare responsibilities. But most also want the chance to influence. And remember that attendance at most Parliamentary sessions is voluntary. Relatively little business is subject to a three line whip (ie you have to turn up).

Parliament needs to be modernised - there is no doubt of that. But we need to start from the bottom up and not just limiting the hours. That's far too broad brush.

I actually think that the salary level is about right. It's much more than most MP s would ever earn outside parliament with the skillset they exhibit... but not paying them automatically excludes anyone who is not independantly rich from participating, or means that the demands of having a second source of income become a huge distraction from their role as an MP. The late night sittings are just silly in a modern society. They inhibit MP s with children from either attending or spending time with the kids to keep them grounded in some sort of reality

The fundamental problem is that faith in MPs is at an all time low. They are perceived as lazy, shiftless, money grabbers that make snake oil salesmen look like saints.

Time after time we see MPs being caught out for their indiscretions, both monetary and personal.

My own MP, who stood down at the election, accepted two directorships that effectively doubled his salary. Whilst I got on very well with him, and he was most helpful to us as a constituency MP, one has to wonder what had to suffer to allow him to take up these extra posts.

Add into this the proposed increase in salary from £67,000 to £74,000 and quite frankly it looks like they are taking the p*ss. I know what you are going to say Will, that this was arrived at by an independent body, but we all know that there is no such thing as true independence. IPSA being a case in point, where there has been a huge lobbying campaign by MPs that has forced them onto the back foot to defend themselves at the detriment of them doing their work.

We should go one way or the other. Full pay and no outside interests, or no pay and continue with outside interests.

It's time the trough was taken away.