Dear Boris (1 Viewer)

[The Philosopher]

It's not for anyone here to say what this forum is or isn't for. If you don't want to make your 'centre-right' case on here and you'd rather we all just shut up, maybe your arguments aren't as strong as you thought.

I’ll rephrase;

There’s a “politics” section on this board. That, I suggest, is a better place to go to talk about politics in general.

Where politics and football directly correlate - like this thread then that’s one thing.

Rehashing Brexit, maybe that’s suited to the politics thread.

You may think my suggestion mad - but that’s that.

 

---

[duffer]

I’ll rephrase;

There’s a “politics” section on this board. That, I suggest, is a better place to go to talk about politics in general.

Where politics and football directly correlate - like this thread then that’s one thing.

Rehashing Brexit, maybe that’s suited to the politics thread.

You may think my suggestion mad - but that’s that.

Not unfair when put that way, but this thread is about Boris after all.

If politics completely derails football threads, then you've got a reasonable point, accepted.

 

[The Philosopher]

All this said, I think the days of Chinese, Arab, Russian investment in U.K. football is over.

Invest a billion (or whatever Rom has done) and if there is a geopolitical fallout then the government takes control?

Not, in my opinion, the way to go about things.

Sending aid / helping humanitarian issues / is fine.

Legal precedent of taking over businesses based on Nationality of owner? I think this will bite us on the arse.

 

[slowpoke]

Who knows.

The bottom line is that the Government have stipulated how Chelsea is sold.

Last I checked, Boris was the leader of the Government.

Talking about yachts and Cuba and wage bills doesn’t make my point wrong.

What i’m saying is government have to be careful I’m sure the PM is trying to ease the Chelsea path and I don’t object to that but we have sanctioned a number of oligarchs now and currently there is an emergency bill going through parliament and on Tuesday a lot more will be sanctioned, PM won’t be risking putting his neck on the block for one business.
If I’ve read correctly Chelsea have been granted 56 days to sell the club I’m sure there will be interest but it will depend on what Abramovic does

 

[rob9872]

Alternatively, make the case wherever and whenever you can. Back your argument with evidence, because that's something that Tories aren't especially good at, and maybe you can make a difference in people's opinions here and elsewhere.

Politics is important and it's a pity that more people don't discuss or debate it.

If they did maybe we wouldn't get stuck with the kind of corrupt incompetents we've currently got in office.

It's not for anyone here to say what this forum is or isn't for. If you don't want to make your 'centre-right' case on here and you'd rather we all just shut up, maybe your arguments aren't as strong as you thought.

In my lifetime there have always been corrupt politicians for as long as I can remember across the house. I wrongly kind of accept it and expect it, but hope that whilst in office they do a good job and that's a whole different can of worms. I'm not sure how you stop it tbh but what I would say is that it will continue unless it pays better to begin with and become aspirational to achieve selection and to be one of the best paid jobs in the country. The basic salary is laughable compared to those in the City, hence we lose all the best political and financial brains to finance and industry. If we want the best people, pay the best prices. They're making decisions for billions of pounds at a time and the salary costs of 650 or so MP's are basically chicken feed in comparison.

 

[SBT]

All this said, I think the days of Chinese, Arab, Russian investment in U.K. football is over.

Seriously?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

In my lifetime there have always been corrupt politicians for as long as I can remember across the house. I wrongly kind of accept it and expect it, but hope that whilst in office they do a good job and that's a whole different can of worms. I'm not sure how you stop it tbh but what I would say is that it will continue unless it pays better to begin with and become aspirational to achieve selection and to be one of the best paid jobs in the country. The basic salary is laughable compared to those in the City, hence we lose all the best political and financial brains to finance and industry. If we want the best people, pay the best prices. They're making decisions for billions of pounds at a time and the salary costs of 650 or so MP's are basically chicken feed in comparison.

Whilst I don't disagree that wages for MPs should be higher, for the final reason you make, remember it's *supposed* to be representative of society, so that also includes the most capable in areas that aren't necessarily finance, or areas that are necessarily well-paid. Get just one perspective, you get an echo chamber and reaffirmation of decisions that haven't been scrutinised. It needs people from all backgrounds, as a result. It's also supposed to be a noble act to serve the people.

(To repeat however, I don't actually have any issue with MPs earning more, but it needs to be done in one swoop, as every pay rise is met with howls of outrage, so the only way to do it is to get it done quickly).

Anyway, what happened to the lighthearted posts, eh?

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

In my lifetime there have always been corrupt politicians for as long as I can remember across the house. I wrongly kind of accept it and expect it, but hope that whilst in office they do a good job and that's a whole different can of worms. I'm not sure how you stop it tbh but what I would say is that it will continue unless it pays better to begin with and become aspirational to achieve selection and to be one of the best paid jobs in the country. The basic salary is laughable compared to those in the City, hence we lose all the best political and financial brains to finance and industry. If we want the best people, pay the best prices. They're making decisions for billions of pounds at a time and the salary costs of 650 or so MP's are basically chicken feed in comparison.

The issue of pay is correct, as we seem to be getting more MP's who's never had a successful career before getting elected. Hence, the numbers of "political studies" or "classics" graduates initially getting jobs as researchers or special advisors to MP's before seeking a constancy for election.
Those jobs will seem well paid compared to academia.
There are obvious recent exceptions with the new MP for Erdington having had a 25 year career as an NHS nurse, but we do seem to have created a system for post grads to secure jobs with MP's.
On the flip side, people who have had successful business careers will inevitably have made some mistakes and wouldn't like the scrutiny of that by our press. Hence may avoid the such roles.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Whilst I don't disagree that wages for MPs should be higher, for the final reason you make, remember it's *supposed* to be representative of society, so that also includes the most capable in areas that aren't necessarily finance, or areas that are necessarily well-paid. Get just one perspective, you get an echo chamber and reaffirmation of decisions that haven't been scrutinised. It needs people from all backgrounds, as a result. It's also supposed to be a noble act to serve the people.

(To repeat however, I don't actually have any issue with MPs earning more, but it needs to be done in one swoop, as every pay rise is met with howls of outrage, so the only way to do it is to get it done quickly).

Anyway, what happened to the lighthearted posts, eh?

It's one of those weird things isn't it. Technically, you don't need any qualifications to be an MP, or to sit on an executive board. As our current cabinet are trying their best to show, you can be unskilled and be given those jobs. I can't be a gasman/electrician etc. without the necessary qualifications, but I could be on the board of Gas and Electricity companies or be an MP that decides legislation setting out what the standards should be without them.

Then if you look at the economics of supply and demand. Let's say two jobs were offered on here. One was to do something menial and horrible but also very important day to day and requires specific knowledge and qualifications, like say sewage treatment engineer. The other was to be a member of the executive board. Which would people prefer to do if given a free choice? There's loads of those 'lesser' jobs that are unfilled. Not seen many boards with unfilled positions. So going by that, in order to fill the unsubscribed positions the pay should increase for those and the pay of the job that has lots of interest reduced so as to make it less over-subscribed.

Some people are good at looking at data, decision making and strategy etc. Others are better at the more operational side of things. Both are necessary for the organisation to function well. Yet the discrepancy between the two can be huge.

 

[rob9872]

It's one of those weird things isn't it. Technically, you don't need any qualifications to be an MP, or to sit on an executive board. As our current cabinet are trying their best to show, you can be unskilled and be given those jobs. I can't be a gasman/electrician etc. without the necessary qualifications, but I could be on the board of Gas and Electricity companies or be an MP that decides legislation setting out what the standards should be without them.

Then if you look at the economics of supply and demand. Let's say two jobs were offered on here. One was to do something menial and horrible but also very important day to day and requires specific knowledge and qualifications, like say sewage treatment engineer. The other was to be a member of the executive board. Which would people prefer to do if given a free choice? There's loads of those 'lesser' jobs that are unfilled. Not seen many boards with unfilled positions. So going by that, in order to fill the unsubscribed positions the pay should increase for those and the pay of the job that has lots of interest reduced so as to make it less over-subscribed.

Some people are good at looking at data, decision making and strategy etc. Others are better at the more operational side of things. Both are necessary for the organisation to function well. Yet the discrepancy between the two can be huge.

Cliff notes 'I'm a socialist'

 

[dadgad]

The issue of Chelski and its link to ‘dirty Russian money’ makes this thread relevant to football. We have two Chelsea loanees and if the govt freeze businesses funded by corrupt oligarchs then we’re affected. But the game is ours, the fans. The breakaway super league failed due to this fact. There is a greater power within each club’s community than the megalomaniac corporate class who may own govts., our clubs, the media and premier league but never us, the fans.
We should remember that, that’s socialism.

 

[dadgad]

Corbyn pointed this out and was shouted down by Grendel’s fascist mates. Now we know why.

 

[slowpoke]

The issue of Chelski and its link to ‘dirty Russian money’ makes this thread relevant to football. We have two Chelsea loanees and if the govt freeze businesses funded by corrupt oligarchs then we’re affected. But the game is ours, the fans. The breakaway super league failed due to this fact. There is a greater power within each club’s community than the megalomaniac corporate class who may own govts., our clubs, the media and premier league but never us, the fans.
We should remember that, that’s socialism.

I think some topics break the “this is a football only websites”

 

[Grendel]

Corbyn pointed this out and was shouted down by Grendel’s fascist mates. Now we know why.

I don’t actually have any fascist mates. What would you actually define as a fascist?

 

[slowpoke]

I don’t actually have any fascist mates. What would you actually define as a fascist?

That’s a great question fascist, nazis, right wing, left wing all terms used over and again but how many really know what they are, certainly not many on here.

 

[SBT]

Nice to see Jonathan Pie is still getting work after leaving, uh, RT.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Please define 'loony left', by policy, that's always a good place to start. Otherwise it's an empty insult. With apologies if that wasn't how you intended to frame it...

Erm given that I am probably included in that bracket it was clearly a reference to someone else’s comments

 

[duffer]

In my lifetime there have always been corrupt politicians for as long as I can remember across the house. I wrongly kind of accept it and expect it, but hope that whilst in office they do a good job and that's a whole different can of worms. I'm not sure how you stop it tbh but what I would say is that it will continue unless it pays better to begin with and become aspirational to achieve selection and to be one of the best paid jobs in the country. The basic salary is laughable compared to those in the City, hence we lose all the best political and financial brains to finance and industry. If we want the best people, pay the best prices. They're making decisions for billions of pounds at a time and the salary costs of 650 or so MP's are basically chicken feed in comparison.

Completely agree that MPs should be paid more (to remove any need or excuse for corruption), and completely disagree that we should ever accept even the vaguest hint of corruption from anyone in public office (from Councillors upwards).

Corruption is a cancer in politics and democracy, and the way you stop it is the same way that you stop any crime: You investigate thoroughly and you punish robustly. That simply isn't happening at the moment.

Below, a link to the Nolan principles that everyone in public office is obliged to uphold. Why we tolerate a Prime Minister who clearly has broken these in more ways than I can count is utterly beyond me.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

www.gov.uk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Completely agree that MPs should be paid more (to remove any need or excuse for corruption), and completely disagree that we should ever accept even the vaguest hint of corruption from anyone in public office (from Councillors upwards).

Corruption is a cancer in politics and democracy, and the way you stop it is the same way that you stop any crime: You investigate thoroughly and you punish robustly. That simply isn't happening at the moment.

Below, a link to the Nolan principles that everyone in public office is obliged to uphold. Why we tolerate a Prime Minister who clearly has broken these in more ways than I can count is utterly beyond me.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

www.gov.uk

While I see your point about paying more, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the best, nor does it mean you'll remove corruption. It will just become a more appetising role for the greedy. It already attracts the power hungry for the amount of control it would give them, so add in a decent financial remuneration (+ the chance to top it up with kickbacks) and it's catnip for them. For some it doesn't matter if you paid them £100k, £250k (+ expenses) they'd still be willing to take money from others in exchange for lobbying etc.

If people hold that much weight to their earnings that's fine, but them them stay in private industry to earn it, not setting laws for everyone which they'll make sure they and those close to them benefit from the most.

Nurses etc. aren't particularly well paid and have a horrendous job a lot of the time, but they are willing to do it because they feel that what they're doing is worthwhile. Being involved in politics should be seen in a similar vein. It's a very privileged position that has the potential to do a great deal of good so that should play a bigger role in attracting people than the financial benefits.

If you kept the current wage and removed the opportunity to do any other paid work/lobbying etc there would still be a massive number of people willing to run for office. If anything make the penalties for corruption by MP's much harsher.

 

[Grendel]

While I see your point about paying more, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the best, nor does it mean you'll remove corruption. It will just become a more appetising role for the greedy. It already attracts the power hungry for the amount of control it would give them, so add in a decent financial remuneration (+ the chance to top it up with kickbacks) and it's catnip for them. For some it doesn't matter if you paid them £100k, £250k (+ expenses) they'd still be willing to take money from others in exchange for lobbying etc.

If people hold that much weight to their earnings that's fine, but them them stay in private industry to earn it, not setting laws for everyone which they'll make sure they and those close to them benefit from the most.

Nurses etc. aren't particularly well paid and have a horrendous job a lot of the time, but they are willing to do it because they feel that what they're doing is worthwhile. Being involved in politics should be seen in a similar vein. It's a very privileged position that has the potential to do a great deal of good so that should play a bigger role in attracting people than the financial benefits.

If you kept the current wage and removed the opportunity to do any other paid work/lobbying etc there would still be a massive number of people willing to run for office. If anything make the penalties for corruption by MP's much harsher.

so basically you want the job mainly to be done by rich people or people who have other jobs.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

so basically you want the job mainly to be done by rich people or people who have other jobs.

Is nursing done by the rich? They get by.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Nice to see Jonathan Pie is still getting work after leaving, uh, RT.

What a wanker that bloke is

 

[Grendel]

Is nursing done by the rich? They get by.

I don’t think each individual nurse gets huge scrutiny from the country, live away from home all week and face the prospect of losing their job every 5 years - I mean at least be serious.

Why have you never wanted the job if it’s piss easy money?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I don’t think each individual nurse gets huge scrutiny from the country, live away from home all week and face the prospect of losing their job every 5 years - I mean at least be serious.

Why have you never wanted the job if it’s piss easy money?

Just because nurses' scrutiny is less public does not mean it is any less rigourous or stressful. They need to meet targets and show competency to their employers and arguably have to do more because they need to show their competency continually. If they fuck up once they could lose their entire career. Wheres massive fuck-ups by MP's is just 'carry on' and 'lessons have been learnt'. Public scrutiny is part of the job remit. Quite often those involved love the public eye and I swear half of them are wannabe reality TV stars without the personality to get on it. Liz Truss LOVES seeing her picture and name in the press, as does Dorries. Even at local council level they're looking to get their name/picture in the press as often as possible. It's something they embrace.

I don't want to do it for the money. I'd want to do it to make a difference and pragmatically I know that there'd be self-interested people and organisations with a shitload of influence and money making it impossible to do so.

Even very very mild changes that would make for a better overall society are met with huge resistance because they will be very, very slightly inconvenienced. If those same people put the same time, money and effort into improving and meeting those changes everyone, including them, would be better off but they can't see further than the end of their nose. If you watched that Who Made Britain Fat programme they talk about how much the food and drink industry put into fighting the reforms, and still are, and how the likes of tobacco did it before them. And we need far, far more radical reforms than that. So much so that if I looked close to getting even 10% of what I wanted done I would be in grave danger of assassination.

Frankly, having self-interested people in such positions of power across the world has brought it to the brink of disaster on numerous fronts and we're going to feel the pain of that to some extent even if we totally changed what we're doing right now (which we won't). The future is going to be shit, but because we can't accept we fuck things up we have to see everything we do as 'progress' even when it isn't.

I wonder why anyone would want someone who's main drive is self-enrichment to be their voice for society as a whole, because they won't do what's best for society as a whole. They will do what is best for them.

 

[rob9872]

Could've saved yourself a rant by typing 'nurses do a great job, mp's are cunts' most would probably agree, but then you go on to a load of hyperbollocks

 

[duffer]

Could've saved yourself a rant by typing 'nurses do a great job, mp's are cunts' most would probably agree, but then you go on to a load of hyperbollocks

If you're too lazy to read it, then don't fucking read it. You could've saved yourself a bit of time too, by shutting the fuck up if you don't want to engage with the actual point.

Tories can't help but whine incoherently when there's no other response available though, QED.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Could've saved yourself a rant by typing 'nurses do a great job, mp's are cunts' most would probably agree, but then you go on to a load of hyperbollocks

Some of us like to add substance to an argument rather than a soundbite.

 

[Grendel]

If you're too lazy to read it, then don't fucking read it. You could've saved yourself a bit of time too, by shutting the fuck up if you don't want to engage with the actual point.

Tories can't help but whine incoherently when there's no other response available though, QED.

this from a guy who put me on ignore as I just dish out abuse and insults

 

[Grendel]

Some of us like to add substance to an argument rather than a soundbite.

you only present soundbite and echo chamber arguments

should a hospital surgeon get more than a nurse in pay?

 

[lifeskyblue]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk