Westministenders: Hustings and Humilation

[RedToothBrush]

Round 1 has passed.
Boris is winning. But these are the Tories. Surprises might yet happen.

But the chances are the lying buffon is full speed ahead to be the next PM. As long as he manages to keep his mouth shut.

Unfortunately being Prime Minister involves talking. This might prove to be something that bursts the BorisMania rather rapidly.

A GE is still very much on the cards.

And we might face the Constitutional and undemocratic shutting down of parliament to satisfy the Tory Faithless.

Meanwhile the EU couldn't give less shits. They just think we are wasting the time we were granted in good faith.

31st October beckons with No Deal.

The MN 'webchat' with Ed Davey went well (not).

Just a point, but if thats the case, why have the Labour Party never had an internal policy to assist their female MPs with extra staff funding for maternity leave?

Because their membership probably have a similar view to the concept of women in work as the Tories ?

I stand by my repeated observations as a 50+ something that the past 30 years appear to have been a slow but sure backslide in so many areas. In 20 years time, it'll be the 1930s again. Beyond that - well why do women need a vote anyway ? After all, if you can't own land or work, what is there for you to waste your time with ?

I think the words 'car crash', are not fit for purpose when describing the Ed Davey webchat.

Because their membership probably have a similar view to the concept of women in work as the Tories ?

I stand by my repeated observations as a 50+ something that the past 30 years appear to have been a slow but sure backslide in so many areas. In 20 years time, it'll be the 1930s again. Beyond that - well why do women need a vote anyway ? After all, if you can't own land or work, what is there for you to waste your time with ?

You've read the Ed Davey webchat too then?

I'm sorry what? So Stella Creasy MP currently relieves the taxpayer of £79,468 (April 2019 MP salary rates) Yep, that's just her "basic" folks, before any expenses or remuneration for other work are added on.

Not content with this, she want's shedloads more public money to be paid out when she isn't actually working, but explicitly to cover other people who will be doing her job.

I return to my oft stated position that MPs are our representatives, elected on a personal mandate. So, she's not going to be fulfilling her representative function but continues being paid for the work (fine, this is as mandated by law)

However, she then has the gall to complain that we aren't stumping up more money to remunerate other, unelected, people for doing her job.

You've read the Ed Davey webchat too then?

Er, no.

Anyway, keeping it light, is this a pointer to post-Brexit Britain, and the only art we'll be able to keep ?

www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/18/crab_ornament_export_ban/

"Fugly" simply doesn't do it justice.

@jasjas1973
like his other quotes for the miners
"Drive the rats back back down their holes."

They cry democracy yet ignore the vote, shouting for another referendum rather than a general election. Maybe because he doesn't fancy his chances against a Brexit candidate unless he moves areas.

As I said people get what they deserve. It will only hit home when the great god house price goes tits up and them the poor get the blame and foot the bill like this time around. And other demand more benefits, opps sorry allowances because they work soooo hard.

So do employers not normally pay people who cover for maternity leave?

{Not content with this, she want's shedloads more public money to be paid out when she isn't actually working, but explicitly to cover other people who will be doing her job.}

On the basis that a 'someone' would be filling some of her duties, and (said MP) won't actually switch off from the job completely, the 'salary' for the 'someone' pales into insignificance when compared to the antics of failing Grayling and so many other massive wastes of space. If the job description specified that this 'someone' must attend parliamentary sittings and truly represent the MP they are covering, at least when voting.
While it rankles that the money may appear to be wasted it is truly nothing in the grand scheme. It should obviously an 'equal opportunities' situation.

Sounds like Louise28 is arguing against maternity cover for any one - the remaining staff should just cover the work that the woman who's just had a baby used to do and/or she should use her own pay to pay for someone to cover it.

Way to go, women's rights

I think that is such a regressive and backward way of thinking and just demonstrates that feminism and women's rights have a long way to go (and/or, as BigChoc points out, have gone backwards since the hard won rights of the 60s and 70s )

FWIW: I believe that properly flexible parental leave (for all - including MPs) should be available and it should be possible to share it between the mother and father (so, for example, the mother taking the 1st half and the father taking the 2nd half). That would help reduce some of the discrimination as employers couldn't assume that it would be the females that they have to find cover for

Leclerc, you missed the "unelected" bit then? Way to miss the point.

So why pay MPs at all?

I am arguing against public money being used to fund unelected "cover" for an elected representative. "The MP" was elected on a personal mandate, not "the person who is now covering for them."

I think MPs should be paid the average annual UK wage/salary for a full time worker.

They should share fully in any rise in that figure achieved during their time in Parliament, so as to incentivise them to pursue policies that will deliver this outcome for everyone.

And I'm arguing for it.

The unelected locum would, in theory, be dealing with constituency caseload, wouldn't they? Not actually working in the House of Commons? So I don't see the problem at all. While an unelected replacement couldn't, say raise a constituent's case at PMQ, they could certainly do plenty of the admin stuff and the 'citizens' advice' type work that forms a large part of an MP's caseload.

And yes, since when was anyone expected to pay for the person covering them during maternity leave out of their own salary? I don't understand the outrage over any of Stella Creasy's points. Sounds like she's just more conscientious about her constituency role than some of her colleagues - the ones we hear about who never respond to letters, etc.

{Leclerc, you missed the "unelected" bit then? Way to miss the point.}

No. My point would be that it would be someone covering the role and political position of the MP concerned. It would not be someone just to do the filing or whatever but a representative of the MP who would still be 'in command'. So, not elected as such but operating under guidance.
Probably a bit too forward thinking for some though.

Issues about how much MPs are paid, which obviously apply to both sexes, are completely separate from questions about entitlement to maternity benefits and cover.

Well I disagree that they should get paid the average wage. Their salary, while being huge to many people (including me) is not very large compared to, say, London managers in a position of responsibility. If the salary is cut then only people who have inherited money or other business interests can afford to be MPs. We hold them accountable far more frequently than many senior management.

I think MPs should be paid the average annual UK wage/salary for a full time worker. They should share fully in any rise in that figure achieved during their time in Parliament, so as to incentivise them to pursue policies that will deliver this outcome for everyone.

The problem is most MPs earn way more than their salary with lovely second jobs as consultants and advisors. That's before you factor in the "revolving door" (Private Eyes passim) whereby MPs that have been involved in one industry area walk into a non executive directorship in one of the companies they've worked with.

Why on earth would any MP vote for a pay cut ?

People are of course free to take an opposing viewpoint.

If somebody is "acting" as my elected political representative when I have had no opportunity to play any part in having them elected, then I think that is outrageous.

MPs work away from home.
They put themselves at risk from the public.
They work longer than 9 - 5 at unsociable hours.

These are all factors which result, in the real world, of extra pay being paid to a worker.

Not to mention, you want to be able to attract talented, ambitious and quality people to such an important role as well as giving them a quality of life.

You don't want it to be a situation where only the super rich can realistically consider being an MP, because of the financial restrictions that works the opposite way to the way you want in terms of good representation. You want to be attracting as many people as possible to consider standing not limiting the pool.

You want people who come from crucial fields like law, medicine, teaching etc - you need to be able to offer comparible wages to those professions - not the average wage. You also want people who have other life experience other than fucking Eton - that includes being anything from a dinner lady or a bin man.

I don't get the argument that MPs wages have to be pittance.

I DO think that expenses is another thing altogether. If you want to go down that route in terms of accountability and value for money, you need things like Westminster owned residences - perhaps like student accomodation, so no one can order ridicilous furniture for their private residence or exploit the system in that fashion. There is room for a travel budget, by constituency band which can not be exceeded (other employers pay for staff to travel to their work away from their home).

I am baffled by your logic Louise.

We hold them accountable far more frequently than many senior management.

Well we try ...

I agree with @1tisILeClerc suggestion. Or at least it being looked into properly. Shouldn't be that hard.

People get paired (still unofficially) if they are ill etc.