Do you want to discuss boring politics? (23 Viewers)

Marty

Well-Known Member
The alternative I saw suggested, and this is going back a good while, is to have almost a parliamentary hotel. 650 rooms so each has their own room with necessary facilities. Cover expenses between main residence and parliament but that’s about it.

Sounds good in theory, but it's an easy target for the lunatics.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Because really they should be in London most of the time. Pay them all £200k and ban all expenses and donations.
But they are also constituency MP's who are supposed to hold surgeries. If they're allowed to get a home for their constituency work, may as well just tell them this is it, so like it or lump it.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
The alternative I saw suggested, and this is going back a good while, is to have almost a parliamentary hotel. 650 rooms so each has their own room with necessary facilities. Cover expenses between main residence and parliament but that’s about it.
That was something I considered.

Potential problems are that it becomes a huge target, and second is that it potentially allows a lot of stuff to happen out of the public eye, so you'd need some sort of press presence to put them off.

Also wouldn't put it past half of them to trash their room when they lost their seat.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
They’ve all got a home at home and all need one in London. The question I guess is London MPs and arguably surrounding areas. I’ve always liked the idea of a house/flat for each MP that needs one given for free for five years, just add bills.
Isn't that pretty much what I've suggested?
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
What are they then. You don't think the benefits system needs tightening up. What does it say in your comic The Socialist Worker?
Rampant unemployment in a post-industrial town that was left to die away by successive governments (and is still being ignored now)

Zero investment in the town/region once the livelihood that provided for the whole community disappeared.

That’s your start point.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Isn't that pretty much what I've suggested?

She doesn’t live in her constituency as she lives with her partner in London. So she’s taking advantage of a system. She could just stay in a hotel when she’s doing surgery or - heaven forbid - get the train back to London afterwards.
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
The alternative I saw suggested, and this is going back a good while, is to have almost a parliamentary hotel. 650 rooms so each has their own room with necessary facilities. Cover expenses between main residence and parliament but that’s about it.
It’s a fun concept but in practice no one would want to stay there, and it would just encourage more of them to make cushy deals for second homes on the side

No one wants to admit it because everyone hates them, but MPs have an important job and should be compensated to the extent that they don’t have to worry about money or side hustles for the time they’re serving. Otherwise the job will continue to only attract poshos and/or grifters.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It’s a fun concept but in practice no one would want to stay there, and it would just encourage more of them to make cushy deals for second homes on the side

No one wants to admit it because everyone hates them, but MPs have an important job and should be compensated to the extent that they don’t have to worry about money or side hustles for the time they’re serving. Otherwise the job will continue to only attract poshos and/or grifters.

That’s it. The more you squeeze them the more they’ll look for ways to line their pockets. The salary isn’t great if you’re someone in any half decent career in London, and the job consumes your life for five years and comes with a host of shit side effects for you and your family.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
It’s a fun concept but in practice no one would want to stay there, and it would just encourage more of them to make cushy deals for second homes on the side

No one wants to admit it because everyone hates them, but MPs have an important job and should be compensated to the extent that they don’t have to worry about money or side hustles for the time they’re serving. Otherwise the job will continue to only attract poshos and/or grifters.
200K a year (no expenses) is a very reasonable salary for example in that job as @shmmeee suggested. Anyone wanting more is only gonna be in it for the grift anyway.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It’s a fun concept but in practice no one would want to stay there, and it would just encourage more of them to make cushy deals for second homes on the side

No one wants to admit it because everyone hates them, but MPs have an important job and should be compensated to the extent that they don’t have to worry about money or side hustles for the time they’re serving. Otherwise the job will continue to only attract poshos and/or grifters.
So you think they aren’t currently compensated enough?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
That’s it. The more you squeeze them the more they’ll look for ways to line their pockets. The salary isn’t great if you’re someone in any half decent career in London, and the job consumes your life for five years and comes with a host of shit side effects for you and your family.
Don’t a lot of jobs consume your life - often for longer than 5 years. They are pretty well payed and in the enviable position of being able to vote for their own pay rises. Kendall is on around £160k.

As I think you have said elsewhere, why not stay in a hotel or get a train back to London, exist in the real world not the metropolitan / career politician bubble.

So they get the additional stamp duty and council tax for second homes covered as well? They should have to repay anything they get from the sale of their second property. There should be rules around what sort of second property they can have - item small and low cost.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Don’t a lot of jobs consume your life - often for longer than 5 years. They are pretty well payed and in the enviable position of being able to vote for their own pay rises. Kendall is on around £160k.

Read an interesting article a while back on the career of an MP when they’re voted out. Seemed pretty brutal.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Isn’t insider trading a Tory evil?


“THE Chancellor is facing calls to reveal whether she inadvertently tipped off a Labour MP with a 2,200-acre family estate about her inheritance tax raid on farms.

The parents of Mid and South Pembrokeshire MP Henry Tufnell transferred ownership of Upper Coln Farm and Stud to his brother Albemarle just 20 days before the Budget.

This means the new ‘family farm tax’ won’t have to be paid on the land - thought to be worth more than £20million - when they pass away, provided they live until October 2031. It has raised questions over whether Mr Tufnell, known as the party’s ‘poshest’ MP, was informed about these changes in advance to avoid the levy.”
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Isn’t insider trading a Tory evil?


“THE Chancellor is facing calls to reveal whether she inadvertently tipped off a Labour MP with a 2,200-acre family estate about her inheritance tax raid on farms.

The parents of Mid and South Pembrokeshire MP Henry Tufnell transferred ownership of Upper Coln Farm and Stud to his brother Albemarle just 20 days before the Budget.

This means the new ‘family farm tax’ won’t have to be paid on the land - thought to be worth more than £20million - when they pass away, provided they live until October 2031. It has raised questions over whether Mr Tufnell, known as the party’s ‘poshest’ MP, was informed about these changes in advance to avoid the levy.”
Bit of a non story every other farm can do precisely the same thing
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Michel Barnier about to lose a vote of no confidence in France. Colour me shocked.

Can't help but think with the current political situation in France that it won't be long before Le Pen gets in.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Rampant unemployment in a post-industrial town that was left to die away by successive governments (and is still being ignored now)

Zero investment in the town/region once the livelihood that provided for the whole community disappeared.

That’s your start point.
What on earth happened to fishing?
 
Last edited:

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Bit of a non story every other farm can do precisely the same thing
Its not what they did, it’s when they did it. It’s doing it in advance of the budget that is the issue. It’s almost as if they gained an advantage by knowing for definite what was going to happen in advance. Even a nice guy like you can’t think that’s OK.

Im sure loads of younger senior farmers (I.e. those likely to live for another 13 years plus) would have done similar if they had known that Reeves was going to do what she did - I think it had been promised that this wouldn‘t happen.

But then, what is a Labour promise worth?

BTW just got my £10 Christmas bonus. I promise not to spend it all a at once. Although I do need a jar of coffee and a loaf of bread.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Don’t a lot of jobs consume your life - often for longer than 5 years. They are pretty well payed and in the enviable position of being able to vote for their own pay rises. Kendall is on around £160k.

As I think you have said elsewhere, why not stay in a hotel or get a train back to London, exist in the real world not the metropolitan / career politician bubble.

So they get the additional stamp duty and council tax for second homes covered as well? They should have to repay anything they get from the sale of their second property. There should be rules around what sort of second property they can have - item small and low cost.

I mean the point is she’s done nothing wrong. This rule has been in place forever. You’re just being reminded of it to make you angry. I don’t think anyone would start from here, but I do think you’d have to raise the salary if you’re asking people to live in London 39 weeks of the year or whatever with no expenses.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
I mean the point is she’s done nothing wrong. This rule has been in place forever. You’re just being reminded of it to make you angry. I don’t think anyone would start from here, but I do think you’d have to raise the salary if you’re asking people to live in London 39 weeks of the year or whatever with no expenses.
She may have done nothing legally wrong, but it isn’t a good look is it?

I thought you disapproved of tax payers money being handed out to millionaires.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Its not what they did, it’s when they did it. It’s doing it in advance of the budget that is the issue. It’s almost as if they gained an advantage by knowing for definite what was going to happen in advance. Even a nice guy like you can’t think that’s OK.

Im sure loads of younger senior farmers (I.e. those likely to live for another 13 years plus) would have done similar if they had known that Reeves was going to do what she did - I think it had been promised that this wouldn‘t happen.

But then, what is a Labour promise worth?

BTW just got my £10 Christmas bonus. I promise not to spend it all a at once. Although I do need a jar of coffee and a loaf of bread.

What advantage have they gained?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
What advantage have they gained?
That they have been able to take steps to avoid a tax in the full knowledge in advance of changes in the tax regime. Alledgedly.

If this was a Tory benefiting from knowledge gained as a result of their political position, eg by insider trading or the like, you would be foaming at the mouth In indignation.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
That they have been able to take steps to avoid a tax in the full knowledge in advance of changes in the tax regime. Alledgedly.

If this was a Tory benefiting from knowledge gained as a result of their political position, eg by insider trading or the like, you would be foaming at the mouth In indignation.

But that would only help if they die a couple of weeks before the cutoff, the rules around passing on property like this haven’t changed. Maybe they didn’t want to pass it on before the tax, but all they’ve gained is doing that slightly early if anything.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Its not what they did, it’s when they did it. It’s doing it in advance of the budget that is the issue. It’s almost as if they gained an advantage by knowing for definite what was going to happen in advance. Even a nice guy like you can’t think that’s OK.

Im sure loads of younger senior farmers (I.e. those likely to live for another 13 years plus) would have done similar if they had known that Reeves was going to do what she did - I think it had been promised that this wouldn‘t happen.

But then, what is a Labour promise worth?

BTW just got my £10 Christmas bonus. I promise not to spend it all a at once. Although I do need a jar of coffee and a loaf of bread.
Well strictly they gained 2 weeks that is all
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
That they have been able to take steps to avoid a tax in the full knowledge in advance of changes in the tax regime. Alledgedly.

If this was a Tory benefiting from knowledge gained as a result of their political position, eg by insider trading or the like, you would be foaming at the mouth In indignation.
Insider training is gaining a financial advantage though
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top