MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Your second sentence explains a lot in terms of the quality of todays typical MP.
Your second sentence explains a lot in terms of the quality of todays typical MP.In London for those hours it’s crap. The sort of people you want as MPs can easily earn it elsewhere.
Your second sentence explains a lot in terms of the quality of today’s typical MP.
Some people who genuinely care about public service and not wealth would be a good start, but there are very few of those given the chance. For the Conservatives someone Heseltine hugely wealthy but clearly cared about public service. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Corbyn, who whilst I despised him, would never deny his staunch unwavering beliefs that he wanted a fairer and better place for all. Andy Burnham, David Davis, Mo Mowlam. There are others I could mention, but really over the 30+ so years I've shown an interest in politics, it's a pretty damning indictment that I couldn't immediately think of a long list from the 650 MP's per parliament.Who would do it? It’s a proper shit job that gets a load of people frothing about you, your family attacked, police installing security alarms in your house and the press poring over your private life. When you can just go and do something stress free in the city and spend your cash how you like while your family is left alone.
It needs to be double what it is for it to be even close to worth it. We should pay far more and expect far better in return.
Some people who genuinely care about public service and not wealth would be a good start, but there are very few of those given the chance. For the Conservatives someone Heseltine hugely wealthy but clearly cared about public service. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Corbyn, who whilst I despised him, would never deny his staunch unwavering beliefs that he wanted a fairer and better place for all. Andy Burnham, David Davis, Mo Mowlam. There are others I could mention, but really over the 30+ so years I've shown an interest in politics, it's a pretty damning indictment that I couldn't immediately think of a long list from the 650 MP's per parliament.
For most who see it as a career it needs to pay ridiculous money. Whilst I know lots (eg Sunak who already have millions) don't need it, if you make it the equivalent of top City jobs then you will attract more of the better brains. It doesn't guarantee anything better but I do think the overall standard would go up. Let's face it, most aren't really in touch with the common people anyway and like most things in life you get what you pay for.
Havent researched the case but developers will probably appeal and then it goes to a government Planning Inspector. That's the acid test not local local government politicians.A labour council planning to block redevelopment of a brown field site for housing. Dear oh dear, what will Keir, Angie and Rachel do about that.
Let assume nothing and permit development of the green belt and then throw the book at boomer nimbys protests and legal actions.
Coventry factory closes for good as firm returns to Sweden
The city council is considering a move to help redevelop the sitewww.coventrytelegraph.net
How long can Reeves last?
Rachel Reeves's CV exaggerated time at Bank of England
The BBC has established the Chancellor left the financial institution nine months earlier than she states in her LinkedIn profile.www.bbc.co.uk
Rachel Reeves and her expenses before she became an MP
BBC News has learnt that there was an expenses investigation into Rachel Reeves, and two other senior managers, when she worked at HBOS.www.bbc.co.uk
How long can Reeves last?
Rachel Reeves's CV exaggerated time at Bank of England
The BBC has established the Chancellor left the financial institution nine months earlier than she states in her LinkedIn profile.www.bbc.co.uk
Rachel Reeves and her expenses before she became an MP
BBC News has learnt that there was an expenses investigation into Rachel Reeves, and two other senior managers, when she worked at HBOS.www.bbc.co.uk
I don't rate Reeves but I don't think that getting a month wrong on a Linkedin profile means anything. It's hardly an online CV for somebody who is currently Chancellor.
I think it's silly that she relies on time spent working for the BOE to justify herself really - just say what you're going to do as chancellor. Nobody asked Gideon Osborn what he'd done previously that was relevant to the position.
The second story is just speculative isn't it? Nothing to it at all, the BBC performing at tabloid level here.
The BBC featured her in those 2 articles on their main news web site, in fact the top 2 on the politics page.This is absolutely desperate stuff.
The BBC featured her in those 2 articles on their main news web site, in fact the top 2 on the politics page.
Presumably even a half wit could, over 14 years, look at what has gone well and what has gone badly And could consider what alternatives could have been pursued if not in opposition. That unfortunately assumes that Labour have anyone who scales the dizzy heights of being a half wit.Government handover is very different in the US and the UK and being out of power four years is very different from being out of power 14 years.
You can’t really plan 14 years ahead, especially when your plans are more than “let your rich mates do whatever they want”.
But but Reeves' LinkedIn profile
I had no idea she had claimed to be a top ranking health economist alongside her other lies. If I had lied on any medium and secured a job, I would expect to be out on my arse pretty quickly. Your response is another example of Labour being defended on the basis of anything and/ or nothing rather than applying some thought, consideration or being subject to public scrutiny as the party who has pledged to adhere to the highest standards of public office - and don’t seem to be cracking it.I had no idea she had claimed to be a top ranking health economist alongsidehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-funding-to-fix-the-nhs-heres-how-it-will-be-spent#:~:text=The%20NHS%20needs%20both%20investment,%2C%20excluding%20COVID%2D19%20years. her other lies.
I had no idea she had claimed to be a top ranking health economist alongside her other lies. If I had lied on any medium and secured a job, I would expect to be out on my arse pretty quickly. Your response is another example of Labour being defended on the basis of anything and/ or nothing rather than applying some thought, consideration or being subject to public scrutiny as the party who has pledged to adhere to the highest standards of public office - and don’t seem to be cracking it.
Two comments/ questions if I may shmmeee.Who would do it? It’s a proper shit job that gets a load of people frothing about you, your family attacked, police installing security alarms in your house and the press poring over your private life. When you can just go and do something stress free in the city and spend your cash how you like while your family is left alone.
It needs to be double what it is for it to be even close to worth it. We should pay far more and expect far better in return.
has Starmer got it in him to do anything.TBH it depends what she put in her actual CV, but as far as I know people don’t formally apply for cabinet positions but are considered for and offered roles by the PM. The PM will take all manner of things in to consideration and May have asked for some review of the background of individuals under consideration. Is it that great a leap to think that a LinkedIn employment history might not be taken in to account. She claimed to have been an economist- false. Her length of employment - false. You have missed out the alleged irregularities in expenses claim. reporting is pathetic. Listened to an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt (Google founder) on R4 this morning, covered lots of stuff, the interviewer asked him for his nightmare scenario. This was the only thing reported in the new bulletin after it “Google founder says AI to be used by rogue states”. Really gutter press stuff. The Tories really did a number on them under Johnson. Not sure Starmer has it in him to undo it tbh.
The above needs to be expanded to see the response to a rather blinkered response and consideration of two examples of alleged corruption.Giving your pub landlord £40m of taxpayers money:
Potential Cost of appointing a Chancellor under false pretences - multiple £billions
Getting some dates wrong on your LinkedIn profile:Edited for allegations omitted (by chance oversight rather than malice - obviously)
in addition to claiming to have experience as an economist whilst also it being alleged there may have been some doubt about veracity about expense claims in the private sector.
Potential Cost of appointing a Chancellor under false pretences - multiple £billions
I see, time to play the misogyny card.She’s get unending shit because she’s a woman. See the cringe “Rachel from accounts” stuff. I’m not surprised she feels she has to justify herself.
This story is beyond nothing though. Oh no your admin got a dropdown on LinkedIn wrong!Glad we got the BBC to “investigate”
There is far more to worry about than Brewdoge.The saddest thing about the British right is how desperately it wants to be the American right and fails miserably.
BrewDog founder launches unofficial Elon Musk-style watchdog to take on UK Government
BREWDOG founder James Watt has launched an unofficial government watchdog which he has styled after Elon Musk’s programme in the US ...www.thenational.scot
The saddest thing about the British right is how desperately it wants to be the American right and fails miserably.
BrewDog founder launches unofficial Elon Musk-style watchdog to take on UK Government
BREWDOG founder James Watt has launched an unofficial government watchdog which he has styled after Elon Musk’s programme in the US ...www.thenational.scot
Would they be spurious? By what definition?Use “extensive Freedom of Information requests to public bodies to delve deeply into how carelessly our tax money is being spent”.
A prime example being the necessity of civil servants to respond to spurious FoI request.
I'm not sure it would lead to better, or at least in terms of people doing the job for the 'right reasons'. Of course you can have the argument that paying less means MP's are more likely to look to feather their own nest in some way or another, but I don't think paying more is going to really make much of a difference in that respect. If you're looking out for yourself then you'll do that even if you are paid more.Some people who genuinely care about public service and not wealth would be a good start, but there are very few of those given the chance. For the Conservatives someone Heseltine hugely wealthy but clearly cared about public service. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Corbyn, who whilst I despised him, would never deny his staunch unwavering beliefs that he wanted a fairer and better place for all. Andy Burnham, David Davis, Mo Mowlam. There are others I could mention, but really over the 30+ so years I've shown an interest in politics, it's a pretty damning indictment that I couldn't immediately think of a long list from the 650 MP's per parliament.
For most who see it as a career it needs to pay ridiculous money. Whilst I know lots (eg Sunak who already have millions) don't need it, if you make it the equivalent of top City jobs then you will attract more of the better brains. It doesn't guarantee anything better but I do think the overall standard would go up. Let's face it, most aren't really in touch with the common people anyway and like most things in life you get what you pay for.
In footballing terms do you want the player who has the talent to play for Man City but costs a lot and wants what he's worth, or the guy who's an electrician in the day and plays for Nuneaton, decent footballer, cares about his profession.I'm not sure it would lead to better, or at least in terms of people doing the job for the 'right reasons'. Of course you can have the argument that paying less means MP's are more likely to look to feather their own nest in some way or another, but I don't think paying more is going to really make much of a difference in that respect. If you're looking out for yourself then you'll do that even if you are paid more.
If the one thing stopping someone trying to get elected now is the pay isn't good enough, I'd suggest they're not actually that bothered about the job in the first place.
Enjoyed the clip yesterday of the farners blowing their horns over Starmer talking to builders and him being led awaynone of the discussion on these new towns have spoken about where the people in them are going to work - also no discussion about infrastructure- we have trouble getting a doctors appointment already !
Would they be spurious? By what definition?
You should have seen some of the FOIs I used to have to deal with in the NHS. The time and thereby cost involved, on top of all the information and data required by governments of the day and initiated by the Labour government in 2001
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?