Don't go dissing Froglington Stroon. It's a lovely place :o

 

I have never had any objection to an MP earning money by, for example, writing a weekly newspaper column. After all, it is the sort of thing they can do in their spare time. Yes, being an MP is a full-time job, but that doesn't mean they should devote every waking hour to the job.

 

Ideally, I would hope to resolve this by a change in the electoral system. Malcolm Rifkind can boast that he has lots of spare time. I would guess that the residents of Kensingotn and Chelsea don't generate anything like as much casework as Jack Straw's constituents in Blackburn. Until this week, Rifkind knew that he could spend as much time as he liked on other interests and he would still retain his seat at the next election.

 

I would prefer to allow MPs to decide for themselves whether to earn extra money. However, in return, they would give the electors the opportunity to disagree with their decision. They would have to declare how much time they spent on their other job(s) and how much they were paid. However, for as long as we use first-past-the-post, there will be too many constituencies where the option to sack the MP will, realistically, not apply.

Don't go dissing Froglington Stroon. It's a lovely place :o

 

I have never had any objection to an MP earning money by, for example, writing a weekly newspaper column. After all, it is the sort of thing they can do in their spare time. Yes, being an MP is a full-time job, but that doesn't mean they should devote every waking hour to the job.

 

Ideally, I would hope to resolve this by a change in the electoral system. Malcolm Rifkind can boast that he has lots of spare time. I would guess that the residents of Kensingotn and Chelsea don't generate anything like as much casework as Jack Straw's constituents in Blackburn. Until this week, Rifkind knew that he could spend as much time as he liked on other interests and he would still retain his seat at the next election.

 

I would prefer to allow MPs to decide for themselves whether to earn extra money. However, in return, they would give the electors the opportunity to disagree with their decision. They would have to declare how much time they spent on their other job(s) and how much they were paid. However, for as long as we use first-past-the-post, there will be too many constituencies where the option to sack the MP will, realistically, not apply.

I agree with a lot of these arguments (and it's why I think a ban on consultancies and directorships but a permission of other earnings up to 15% of salary as Ed's proposing is a good idea, to account for things like weekly columns etc), but there aren't many changes to the electoral system possible where a Tory MP for Kensington wouldn't have a safe seat!

Froglington Stroon's lovely but the LESS said about the locals the BETTER! That one's a nailed down UKIP gain in May, I can FEEL IT IN MY WATERS

Froglington Stroon's lovely but the LESS said about the locals the BETTER! That one's a NAILED DOWN UKIP gain in May, I can FEEL IT IN MY WATERS

 

Embarrassingly, I just googled Froglington Stroon to see who its MP was. Didn't realise it was a made-up place. :blush:

What an insult to the fine residents of West Porkshire!

I don't think anyone would object to peanuts like a newspaper column in their own time, but accepting directorships and the like is just not on while they are serving the country. If being an MP is part-time then there are too many of them for the amount of work required. like workers in local government, they should be subject to cost-effectiveness...

 

I do think they are underpaid, which is not a popular opinion of course, but the wage should be enough to not need to do second jobs.

I agree with a lot of these arguments (and it's why I think a ban on consultancies and directorships but a permission of other earnings up to 15% of salary as Ed's proposing is a good idea, to account for things like weekly columns etc), but there aren't many changes to the electoral system possible where a Tory MP for Kensington wouldn't have a safe seat!

STV in multi-member constituencies. That would allow people to vote Tory (some people still want to do this) but vote against Rifkind.

 

Embarrassingly, I just googled Froglington Stroon to see who its MP was. Didn't realise it was a made-up place. :blush:

:lol:

 

I don't think anyone would object to peanuts like a newspaper column in their own time, but accepting directorships and the like is just not on while they are serving the country. If being an MP is part-time then there are too many of them for the amount of work required. like workers in local government, they should be subject to cost-effectiveness...

 

I do think they are underpaid, which is not a popular opinion of course, but the wage should be enough to not need to do second jobs.

I agree that MPs should be paid more. I know how hard a lot of them work but they never make the news.

The trouble with STV is that in rural areas it leads to some mahoosive constituencies. I like the idea of mixing it with AV - either having the former in urban and and the later in rural seats, or a mixed system where the STV is done on a county level and elects half the house with AV for the other half.

STV in multi-member constituencies. That would allow people to vote Tory (some people still want to do this) but vote against Rifkind.

How would STV in multi-member constituencies allow people to vote against Rifkind - local Tory list selection?

How would STV in multi-member constituencies allow people to vote against Rifkind - local Tory list selection?

Because they would vote for all the other Tory candidates ahead of Rifkind. He would then, as long as enough people did it, be eliminated at some stage.

So, Labour's tuition fees reduction policy has been confirmed. It is to be financed in part by restricting tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate.

 

I agree with the policy on tax relief. I've been arguing in favour of it for many years. However, I don't think that it should be used to reduce tuition fees. There are far higher priorities.

 

Of course, the Tory response has been as pathetic as ever. Osborne has claimed that the pension policy would affect nurses and firefighters. That is utter rubbish. It will only affect people on higher rate tax; nurses and firefighters come nowhere near that. So, Osborne could be deliberately lying in order to make people think it is a bad idea. OTOH, he could be so out of touch that he thinks firefighters are on £40K+. They might want to use that in their next pay negotiations.

Highlight of the tuition fees announcement has been the Lib Dem reaction, including one MP saying that they would block any decrease in fees were they in coalition with Labour. How times change.

I think there is a stronger determination in the Lib Dems to sell the current system as being fairer than the system it replaced. It's only taken them 4 1/2 years.

So, Labour's tuition fees reduction policy has been confirmed. It is to be financed in part by restricting tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate.

 

I agree with the policy on tax relief. I've been arguing in favour of it for many years. However, I don't think that it should be used to reduce tuition fees. There are far higher priorities.

 

Of course, the Tory response has been as pathetic as ever. Osborne has claimed that the pension policy would affect nurses and firefighters. That is utter rubbish. It will only affect people on higher rate tax; nurses and firefighters come nowhere near that. So, Osborne could be deliberately lying in order to make people think it is a bad idea. OTOH, he could be so out of touch that he thinks firefighters are on £40K+. They might want to use that in their next pay negotiations.

 

I agree, and I'm in favour of stopping the very well-off have perks that the rest of us don't get, such as sweet pension deals. That said, presumably any graduate that does very well out of their degree will end up paying anyway in the new system, perhaps even more than they would have under the Libdem system (I'd like to see some examples of overall costs, at least the current is definitely fixed at a max of 9 or 12k to students to pay back). Presumably those that get a borderline low wage (like me) won't pay it, meaning those that do better take on that cost (along with any well-off folk who got there without a degree).

 

So, good news for some students, less good news for others....

 

hmmm, OK students, what do you think about it?

I agree, and I'm in favour of stopping the very well-off have perks that the rest of us don't get, such as sweet pension deals. That said, presumably any graduate that does very well out of their degree will end up paying anyway in the new system, perhaps even more than they would have under the Libdem system (I'd like to see some examples of overall costs, at least the current is definitely fixed at a max of 9 or 12k to students to pay back). Presumably those that get a borderline low wage (like me) won't pay it, meaning those that do better take on that cost (along with any well-off folk who got there without a degree).

 

So, good news for some students, less good news for others....

 

hmmm, OK students, what do you think about it?

How will people end up paying more? There's £9k less to pay back, and it starts at £21k as it does now.

How will people end up paying more? There's £9k less to pay back, and it starts at £21k as it does now.

 

Not if you are the ones being taxed for pension perks, then it's an unknown indefinite quantity. Someone's picking up the tab, and those someone's are the better-off, which in principle I'm in favour of because by definition the less-well-off get let off 9k - though the really less-well-off would anyway - it's shifting the cost further up the scale so I'm guessing a bigger batch of middle-income ex-students will gain, and better-income ex-students (plus A.N. Others) will lose. Dont forget the tax payer has covered the cost previously of those who never repay - now it'll be the well-off alone who cover it. That's why I said I'd like to see some estimates on exactly how much it's going to cost individuals who lose the pension perks - Labour has costed it, so they must know.....

The pension 'perk' is pretty unjustifiable anyway. Why should higher rate tax payers get a lower rate of tax on their pension than basic rate payers? It's *literally* a regressive tax.

The pension 'perk' is pretty unjustifiable anyway. Why should higher rate tax payers get a lower rate of tax on their pension than basic rate payers? It's *literally* a regressive tax.

 

absolutely. I'd stop all perks for all rich people and rich companies who get advantages the less-well-off don't get. It's the rich looking after the rich on the fatuous excuse that it would hurt the economy if they didn't let rich people get away with things. If all the super-rich buggered off abroad I'm not sure it would hit the economy that badly, barring putting some establishments that cater exclusively for the rich out of business, or force them to aim downmarket to get by. Not as if it's going to dent the job market in tescos or HMV sales or lose much tax from the likes of Amazon, and property sales might suddenly get more affordable.

 

If an ordinary person has to spend half their wages in tax, rent, mortgage, pension then so should the rich.

 

"The first against the wall when the revolution comes..." © D.A. :P

Embarrassingly, I just googled Froglington Stroon to see who its MP was. Didn't realise it was a made-up place. :blush:

http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/archive/ind...68242-p-22.html

 

I googled too.

Latest Lord Ashcroft polling has the SNP still on track to be the third largest party after the election.