Dodgy Dave

[JohnL]

Parliament was fun in those days - and maybe this is a man vindicated.

[malumbu]

Not a man I can warm too. Screwed the country up and then left it to others to sort. Very much of what I think of as representing the 'nasty party' - the term that May coined. That said they seem even nastier with Johnson at the helm.

[hpsaucey]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not a man I can warm too. Screwed the country up

> and then left it to others to sort. Very much of

> what I think of as representing the 'nasty party'

> - the term that May coined. That said they seem

> even nastier with Johnson at the helm.

Seconded...

[Blah Blah]

Well, it just gets more and more incestuous as more details leak out. Basically, wealthy people in government protect their own wealth and investments first. It has always been that way and there is no real will to stop it.

[Seabag]

Sleaze all over again.

[holloway]

Back scratching and dodgy dealings have and will always go on in government sadly, but this greenshill affair is particularly mind-blowing.

Cameron allowed a private company access to Downing street when PM and has recently lobbied the chancellor on this company's behalf for financial aid.

Rotten to the core

[Seabag]

He?s building quite the legacy is Dave

Rotten Tory through and through

https://apple.news/A-7yn2MvbTWW9RUzI5M0cDA

[heartblock]

The thing is it?s not sleaze, it?s corruption and needs to be called what it is.

[Seabag]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The thing is it?s not sleaze, it?s corruption and

> needs to be called what it is.

With a corrupt government, how can they call it what it is?

It?s always prevarication, distraction, and delay when called out.

[malumbu]

Government needs to be voted out because of this. But it wont as we all know - ballot box no longer reflects lack of integrity of some MPs - the usual suspects. By no means all as most want what is best for their country.

Perhaps Starmer may get some success from this (I'm whispering)

[Blah Blah]

The answer is simple. No MP may hold any other paid position apart from that of MP, may hold no shares, business interests or connection to businesses that are recipients of government help and/ or money. That would instantly make the job less attractive to a lot of the entitled charlatans that currently fleece Parliament.

[KidKruger]

The Orgs would just employ/enrich the spouse I would expect.

Or do something via offshore/out of sight.

The corruption WILL be done.

[TheCat]

This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but what about paying politicians more?

Further....incentive payments for doing a good job. And given that almost any metric one could choose as a KPI would likely be open to abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning your seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you retain your seat at a general election, you salary goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer you might get paid a multiple of a first termer....so you are financially incentivised to look after your constituents, not to look after yourself....

Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI disclosures and restrictions.

Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that suggestion as well.....just thinking out loud/outside the box....

[wordsworth]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but

> what about paying politicians more?

>

> Further....incentive payments for doing a good

> job. And given that almost any metric one could

> choose as a KPI would likely be open to

> abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning your

> seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you

> retain your seat at a general election, you salary

> goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer

> you might get paid a multiple of a first

> termer....so you are financially incentivised to

> look after your constituents, not to look after

> yourself....

>

> Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI

> disclosures and restrictions.

>

> Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that

> suggestion as well.....just thinking out

> loud/outside the box....

Ffs

[Seabag]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but

> what about paying politicians more?

>

> Further....incentive payments for doing a good

> job. And given that almost any metric one could

> choose as a KPI would likely be open to

> abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning your

> seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you

> retain your seat at a general election, you salary

> goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer

> you might get paid a multiple of a first

> termer....so you are financially incentivised to

> look after your constituents, not to look after

> yourself....

>

> Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI

> disclosures and restrictions.

>

> Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that

> suggestion as well.....just thinking out

> loud/outside the box....

My friend is an alcoholic, in recovery.

1 drink is too many, 1000 drinks are not enough.

[Seabag]

It?s the ?Dave?s fcuked a pig? story all over again for the Tory?s

Nobody doesn?t believe it?s not true, just nobody wants to say ?yes, he did it and I watched?

Seriously, and this lot took the country to Brexit, then a hard Brexit and let lots more people die of covid than really should have.

And they got votes.

[TheCat]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but

> > what about paying politicians more?

> >

> > Further....incentive payments for doing a good

> > job. And given that almost any metric one could

> > choose as a KPI would likely be open to

> > abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning

> your

> > seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you

> > retain your seat at a general election, you

> salary

> > goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer

> > you might get paid a multiple of a first

> > termer....so you are financially incentivised

> to

> > look after your constituents, not to look after

> > yourself....

> >

> > Obviously combining this with a robust set of

> CoI

> > disclosures and restrictions.

> >

> > Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that

> > suggestion as well.....just thinking out

> > loud/outside the box....

>

> My friend is an alcoholic, in recovery.

>

> 1 drink is too many, 1000 drinks are not enough.

Sure..maybe that's not the exact right idea. But as some of the posts above begin to illustrate, it is very difficult (almost practically impossible) to regulate away all possibility of conflict if interest. So if the 'stick' cant do it alone, the concept Im exploring is what 'carrot' can also be provided to disincentivise the needs or desire to pursue these sorts of options. As I mention ("Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI disclosures and restrictions"), a strong combination of both may provide the best system/defence.....

[Seabag]

The ?carrot? is the person?s character

Cameron, Johnson and CO are rotten carrots, you know this, they know this.

[Seabag]

Maybe it?s time to bring back Dominick Grieve and Ken Clarke etc

You know, the ones real people might trust

[Blah Blah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but

> what about paying politicians more?

...........................................

> Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that

> suggestion as well.....just thinking out

> loud/outside the box....

No, you are looking at this all wrong. The problem is that power and obscene wealth go hand in hand. It is breaking that connection (driver) that is key. So that really is the question. How do we remove financial incentive from political power? Paying people more does not remove that. There are plenty of suitably intelligent people for whom ?79k a year would be a fortune. Why? Because 90 percent of people never earn even half of that! The real challenge is one expanding the career option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half of whom are told they are born to it!

To be clear....90 percent of people in work do not earn enough to take them into the higher tax bracket. The job of MP isn't offered as a career option to the 93 percent of children who do not enter the public school education system in fact. So this idea that you have to pay already entitled and privileged people more is just bonkers. You are arguing to prop up an existing elitist system.

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> The real challenge is one expanding the career

> option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half of

> whom are told they are born to it!

This is opening up a whole new can of worms....but here goes....

Totally agree. But while being an MP does indeed pay more than most people will earn. How many 'ordinary' people would choose/be able to take time off from their existing jobs to campaign, then (if they get elected), quit their job and totally change careers for one (while paying more than they might make today) which highly likely to have them tossed out of their job in 5 years (or less)....

Sure, maybe the answer is not as simple as 'more money', but adding incentive to run as an MP surely is key to attracting a broader range of people to do so.....??

[Sephiroth]

I agree that the job of being an MP is currently undervalued - socially and economically. I think they should be paid more and I think they should attract a wider group of people

That said - I think the voters share as much blame as anyone for current state. Since the expenses scandal (ah, were we ever so young) the public appear to prefer abusing MPs than understand what it is they do, coupled with the fact that no matter what they do, as long as they are wearing the correct team colours (of any hue) they can be relatively assured of the vote in most constituencies. The voting system doesn't help in this regard

[Blah Blah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > TheCat Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > The real challenge is one expanding the career

> > option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half

> of

> > whom are told they are born to it!

>

>

> This is opening up a whole new can of worms....but

> here goes....

>

> Totally agree. But while being an MP does indeed

> pay more than most people will earn. How many

> 'ordinary' people would choose/be able to take

> time off from their existing jobs to campaign,

> then (if they get elected), quit their job and

> totally change careers for one (while paying more

> than they might make today) which highly likely to

> have them tossed out of their job in 5 years (or

> less)....

>

> Sure, maybe the answer is not as simple as 'more

> money', but adding incentive to run as an MP

> surely is key to attracting a broader range of

> people to do so.....??

Being an MP is a job. If people want to pursue that as a career, then yes, just as people do for all sorts of other careers, they will do what they need to do to get there whilst doing another job. Once getting there however, that should be the only job. And if the salary isn't going to be enough for someone, then don't choose it as a job! Simple really.

[TheCat]

@ Sephiroth

Good comment. The increasing tribalism (of all colours, as you say) means that supporters of any tribe are increasingly overlooking shortcomings on their 'team' in favour of partisanship. I think we're all guilty of this on occasion to be fair.

Well...look at that....if sephiroth and I are agreeing on something.....maybe there is hope for the world yet:)

[Seabag]

It?s too late for this government, its fatberg has slipped the mooring.

Johnson on Dyson and many other things

Matt Cockhand

Dominic Raab

Dave (not the rapper)

Fishing

Accounting for dead people

Scotland

Ireland

Announcing a bridge to somewhere

And the rest. It?s a countdown until the end.