Do you want to discuss boring politics? (173 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Target on Rishi’s back. Probably just nutters stirring the pot, but would be hilarious if they got rid of him. Saw a pretty accurate comment on Twitter: “Sunak is simultaneously a terrible PM who will lose and the Tories best chance of avoiding annihilation”

12ft

12ft.io
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But we have to pay them the excessive salary's to attract the brightest and best...
Click to expand...

The problem isn’t the salary per se, it’s the selection process that requires you to be a political nutter who spends years in dull as dishwater meeting “paying your dues” or be so nuts you’re a Conservative Party member.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
The problem isn’t the salary per se, it’s the selection process that requires you to be a political nutter who spends years in dull as dishwater meeting “paying your dues” or be so nuts you’re a Conservative Party member.
Click to expand...
I think there are many competent mps that’s why I think the answer is they are xxxntx
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
I think there are many competent mps that’s why I think the answer is they are xxxntx
Click to expand...

There are many competent ones, the problem really is the big names aren’t anything like as serious minded as the big beasts of old for me. So the representation of MPs the public gets is skewed towards nutters who will say nutty things on TV that go viral.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Target on Rishi’s back. Probably just nutters stirring the pot, but would be hilarious if they got rid of him. Saw a pretty accurate comment on Twitter: “Sunak is simultaneously a terrible PM who will lose and the Tories best chance of avoiding annihilation”

12ft

12ft.io
Click to expand...

Said it before but there is no-one who can unite the tories it's so fractured now.
Whoever they install will have someone gunning for them internally.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
Said it before but there is no-one who can unite the tories it's so fractured now.
Whoever they install will have someone gunning for them internally.
Click to expand...

I think I’m right in saying Sunak is still the most popular Tory MP with the public (may have changed, I know his ratings have been dropping). So anyone they replace him with is almost certain to drag them down further.

I’m resigned to us not getting a GE until as late as possible so am able to find all this highly amusing instead of intensely distressing somehow.
 
D

Deleted member 9744

Guest
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But we have to pay them the excessive salary's to attract the brightest and best...
Click to expand...
They aren't particularly well paid given the importance of what they do, or should do. Of course some of them aren't worth what they do get and frankly ones like Liz Truss, Peter Bone or Nadine Dorries wouldn't be worth minimum wage. However, that doesn't mean that the responsibility of the role shouldn't be better recognised.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
The problem isn’t the salary per se, it’s the selection process that requires you to be a political nutter who spends years in dull as dishwater meeting “paying your dues” or be so nuts you’re a Conservative Party member.
Click to expand...
That was largely my point. It's more to do with arse-licking than ability.

How many jobs are there that have literally has no minimum education requirement? Let alone one that puts you on over 80k and gives you a say in how to run the country? All you have to do is get your name down under the right rosette in the right constituency and you're a shoo-in.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I think I’m right in saying Sunak is still the most popular Tory MP with the public (may have changed, I know his ratings have been dropping). So anyone they replace him with is almost certain to drag them down further.

I’m resigned to us not getting a GE until as late as possible so am able to find all this highly amusing instead of intensely distressing somehow.
Click to expand...
Not amusing for the country as a whole, in fact quite the opposite.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 9744 said:
They aren't particularly well paid given the importance of what they do, or should do. Of course some of them aren't worth what they do get and frankly ones like Liz Truss, Peter Bone or Nadine Dorries wouldn't be worth minimum wage. However, that doesn't mean that the responsibility of the role shouldn't be better recognised.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that.

It just seems a poor argument that the pay will attract the brightest and best. It won't, even if it was higher. There will be those who want to do it to improve the country and make a difference, in which case the pay will be secondary to them, just as it is for nurses, teachers etc. The other people it attracts are those with a self-inflated ego on a power trip, and again money is secondary. For me an MP should be doing the job predominantly for the desire to make things better, not because the remuneration package is pretty tidy.

There are plenty of intelligent people who have jobs that earn less than an MP's salary, so why don't they do it? Because the nature of the job doesn't appeal to them. Making the role attractive to those whose primary incentive is the pay isn't going to be better.

Also if we want MP's to be able to relate to the average person on the street, is giving them a wage massively above that of the vast majority of the people going to help them to do that?

You could make an MP's salary £1m and it'd still be filled with inept charlatans. Just these would be greedier inept charlatans.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I don't disagree with that.

It just seems a poor argument that the pay will attract the brightest and best. It won't, even if it was higher. There will be those who want to do it to improve the country and make a difference, in which case the pay will be secondary to them, just as it is for nurses, teachers etc. The other people it attracts are those with a self-inflated ego on a power trip, and again money is secondary. For me an MP should be doing the job predominantly for the desire to make things better, not because the remuneration package is pretty tidy.

There are plenty of intelligent people who have jobs that earn less than an MP's salary, so why don't they do it? Because the nature of the job doesn't appeal to them. Making the role attractive to those whose primary incentive is the pay isn't going to be better.

Also if we want MP's to be able to relate to the average person on the street, is giving them a wage massively above that of the vast majority of the people going to help them to do that?

You could make an MP's salary £1m and it'd still be filled with inept charlatans. Just these would be greedier inept charlatans.
Click to expand...
Western society in general pays loads to people who don't deserve it and not enough to those who do.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
There’s a suggestion that Truss’ “comeback” will hit the Tories in the polls. Maybe that was the point in the first place. An opportunity to stick the knife in Sunak.
 
M

Macca1987

Well-Known Member
So now Sunak is going to split up his BEIS department, if there isn't enough cretins around his table as ministers, why not create some more, fucking halfwits
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Macca1987 said:
So now Sunak is going to split up his BEIS department, if there isn't enough cretins around his table as ministers, why not create some more, fucking halfwits
Click to expand...

I actually think creating a seperate department focusing on energy security is a good idea.

The problem is how much can they achieve when part of their remit will be to ensure whatever they come up with doesn't harm the profits of their spiv mates at the oil and utility companies?
 
M

Macca1987

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I actually think creating a seperate department focusing on energy security is a good idea.

The problem is how much can they achieve when part of their remit will be to ensure whatever they come up with doesn't harm the profits of their spiv mates at the oil and utility companies?
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point. My issue is they will divide it up into three departments and then he will slot 3 of his cronies to head them, who won't have a clue on what is needed for this country, as you say more aligned to their spiv cronies
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I actually think creating a seperate department focusing on energy security is a good idea.

The problem is how much can they achieve when part of their remit will be to ensure whatever they come up with doesn't harm the profits of their spiv mates at the oil and utility companies?
Click to expand...
How very sceptical of you.

On an unrelated note

www.theguardian.com

Energy prices to soar again as Jeremy Hunt rejects pleas to halt rise

Millions will see costs mount by another 40% in April as rebate scheme ends and chancellor lets cap go up to £3,000
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 166 (members: 10, guests: 156)
    Top