Labour Files

[Stom]

I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... ng-system/

AV is worse than FPTP. That's why it was presented as an option in the referendum a few years back. So they could claim the public didn't want a new voting system.

What is 'Pure PR' btw? Lol

STV is the best option if people want to compromise a bit on the proportionality in order to get more local representation.

But if you want new parties to be viable then you need PR

Sorry, you’re right, I meant AMS. Pure PR is where it’s one big list.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Lobbying and political contributions are a major issue. It cuts both ways in fairness. I’m starting to think that giving political parties state money is the way forward, because frankly the current system is a swamp.

Agreed, state fund the parties, ban lobbying. I would also ban second jobs unless they are severely limited in time dedicated to them and no income is received.

Raise their pay as well.

Agreed, never a popular move but should be done at the same time as banning outside pay.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... ng-system/

AV is worse than FPTP. That's why it was presented as an option in the referendum a few years back. So they could claim the public didn't want a new voting system.

What is 'Pure PR' btw? Lol

STV is the best option if people want to compromise a bit on the proportionality in order to get more local representation.

But if you want new parties to be viable then you need PR

Sorry, you’re right, I meant AMS. Pure PR is where it’s one big list.

Any kind of PR (ie where the representation matches the voting %) would be a massive improvement over FPTP.

Personally I'd go for something similar to New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

[Puja]

Agreed, state fund the parties, ban lobbying. I would also ban second jobs unless they are severely limited in time dedicated to them and no income is received.

Raise their pay as well.

Agreed, never a popular move but should be done at the same time as banning outside pay.

See, now I know the traditional argument for this one is that, "If we don't pay the MPs enough, then people in lucrative jobs won't want to come and be MPs and we'll be missing out on all that experience and education," but I have to say I disagree on the importance of this for a couple of reasons:

1) Ability to earn a good wage =!= competence or intelligence. This country is very far from a meritocracy, so the idea that talent is concentrated in the people earning big bucks is absolutely specious. And, even if it was true, we're already not paying enough to draw in the very top echelons (and that will go doubly so if we're banning outside jobs and pay), so what we're actually competing for is the mid-range people. Unless we're talking about doubling MPs pay, which I'm going to assume no-one is brave enough to suggest.

2) MPs currently earn £84k, not including expenses, allowances, and freebies (which are far from insubstantial). The average wage in the UK is £31k. They earn well over 3 x the average wage when everything is taken into account. They're fine - no-one who's an MP is every going to be struggling for money. Yes, there will be some people turned off if they can only earn X amount rather than Y, but are those the people who we really want to be in politics? We might have a bit more of a representative parliament if we had a few more average people standing for whom £84k + £20-30k in allowances would be a dream pay rise, and a fewer who would see it as a pittance.

Puja

[Stom]

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... ng-system/

AV is worse than FPTP. That's why it was presented as an option in the referendum a few years back. So they could claim the public didn't want a new voting system.

What is 'Pure PR' btw? Lol

STV is the best option if people want to compromise a bit on the proportionality in order to get more local representation.

But if you want new parties to be viable then you need PR

Sorry, you’re right, I meant AMS. Pure PR is where it’s one big list.

Any kind of PR (ie where the representation matches the voting %) would be a massive improvement over FPTP.

Personally I'd go for something similar to New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

I disagree. A party list PR system would be an absolute mess. We'd end up with Tories holding a third or a bit more, Labour holding a third or a bit more, Lib Dem holding ten to fifteen percent, and everyone else picking up the scraps. And with the way our politics is, those parties would find it very hard to form any government together.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sorry, you’re right, I meant AMS. Pure PR is where it’s one big list.

Any kind of PR (ie where the representation matches the voting %) would be a massive improvement over FPTP.

Personally I'd go for something similar to New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

I disagree. A party list PR system would be an absolute mess. We'd end up with Tories holding a third or a bit more, Labour holding a third or a bit more, Lib Dem holding ten to fifteen percent, and everyone else picking up the scraps. And with the way our politics is, those parties would find it very hard to form any government together.

I'm not sure what you mean. Any true PR system will give roughly the same party split in parliament as any other. Party list just means that there's no constituency link - the MPs have no connection with any particular location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportio ... esentation

[Puja]

Sorry, you’re right, I meant AMS. Pure PR is where it’s one big list.

Any kind of PR (ie where the representation matches the voting %) would be a massive improvement over FPTP.

Personally I'd go for something similar to New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

I disagree. A party list PR system would be an absolute mess. We'd end up with Tories holding a third or a bit more, Labour holding a third or a bit more, Lib Dem holding ten to fifteen percent, and everyone else picking up the scraps. And with the way our politics is, those parties would find it very hard to form any government together.

I don't know, you'd likely get a fairly consistent LabLibGreen out of that (33ish, 10-15ish, 7-10ish) and that's not including that SNP and Plaid could probably be counted on in confidence and supply.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Any kind of PR (ie where the representation matches the voting %) would be a massive improvement over FPTP.

Personally I'd go for something similar to New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

I disagree. A party list PR system would be an absolute mess. We'd end up with Tories holding a third or a bit more, Labour holding a third or a bit more, Lib Dem holding ten to fifteen percent, and everyone else picking up the scraps. And with the way our politics is, those parties would find it very hard to form any government together.

I'm not sure what you mean. Any true PR system will give roughly the same party split in parliament as any other. Party list just means that there's no constituency link - the MPs have no connection with any particular location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportio ... esentation

You have districts - which can still be local, just larger area. Could be per county.

[Banquo]

Raise their pay as well.

Agreed, never a popular move but should be done at the same time as banning outside pay.

See, now I know the traditional argument for this one is that, "If we don't pay the MPs enough, then people in lucrative jobs won't want to come and be MPs and we'll be missing out on all that experience and education," but I have to say I disagree on the importance of this for a couple of reasons:

1) Ability to earn a good wage =!= competence or intelligence. This country is very far from a meritocracy, so the idea that talent is concentrated in the people earning big bucks is absolutely specious. And, even if it was true, we're already not paying enough to draw in the very top echelons (and that will go doubly so if we're banning outside jobs and pay), so what we're actually competing for is the mid-range people. Unless we're talking about doubling MPs pay, which I'm going to assume no-one is brave enough to suggest.

2) MPs currently earn £84k, not including expenses, allowances, and freebies (which are far from insubstantial). The average wage in the UK is £31k. They earn well over 3 x the average wage when everything is taken into account. They're fine - no-one who's an MP is every going to be struggling for money. Yes, there will be some people turned off if they can only earn X amount rather than Y, but are those the people who we really want to be in politics? We might have a bit more of a representative parliament if we had a few more average people standing for whom £84k + £20-30k in allowances would be a dream pay rise, and a fewer who would see it as a pittance.

Puja

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

[Puja]

Agreed, never a popular move but should be done at the same time as banning outside pay.

See, now I know the traditional argument for this one is that, "If we don't pay the MPs enough, then people in lucrative jobs won't want to come and be MPs and we'll be missing out on all that experience and education," but I have to say I disagree on the importance of this for a couple of reasons:

1) Ability to earn a good wage =!= competence or intelligence. This country is very far from a meritocracy, so the idea that talent is concentrated in the people earning big bucks is absolutely specious. And, even if it was true, we're already not paying enough to draw in the very top echelons (and that will go doubly so if we're banning outside jobs and pay), so what we're actually competing for is the mid-range people. Unless we're talking about doubling MPs pay, which I'm going to assume no-one is brave enough to suggest.

2) MPs currently earn £84k, not including expenses, allowances, and freebies (which are far from insubstantial). The average wage in the UK is £31k. They earn well over 3 x the average wage when everything is taken into account. They're fine - no-one who's an MP is every going to be struggling for money. Yes, there will be some people turned off if they can only earn X amount rather than Y, but are those the people who we really want to be in politics? We might have a bit more of a representative parliament if we had a few more average people standing for whom £84k + £20-30k in allowances would be a dream pay rise, and a fewer who would see it as a pittance.

Puja

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

See, now I know the traditional argument for this one is that, "If we don't pay the MPs enough, then people in lucrative jobs won't want to come and be MPs and we'll be missing out on all that experience and education," but I have to say I disagree on the importance of this for a couple of reasons:

1) Ability to earn a good wage =!= competence or intelligence. This country is very far from a meritocracy, so the idea that talent is concentrated in the people earning big bucks is absolutely specious. And, even if it was true, we're already not paying enough to draw in the very top echelons (and that will go doubly so if we're banning outside jobs and pay), so what we're actually competing for is the mid-range people. Unless we're talking about doubling MPs pay, which I'm going to assume no-one is brave enough to suggest.

2) MPs currently earn £84k, not including expenses, allowances, and freebies (which are far from insubstantial). The average wage in the UK is £31k. They earn well over 3 x the average wage when everything is taken into account. They're fine - no-one who's an MP is every going to be struggling for money. Yes, there will be some people turned off if they can only earn X amount rather than Y, but are those the people who we really want to be in politics? We might have a bit more of a representative parliament if we had a few more average people standing for whom £84k + £20-30k in allowances would be a dream pay rise, and a fewer who would see it as a pittance.

Puja

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

One thing to bear in mind when comparing MP's pay vs other careers - MPs have a fairly insecure job, so perhaps deserve a little more to cover the risk of sudden unemployment.

[Puja]

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

One thing to bear in mind when comparing MP's pay vs other careers - MPs have a fairly insecure job, so perhaps deserve a little more to cover the risk of sudden unemployment.

A likely 5 year contract isn't that insecure, although I do take your point. However, they do have ridiculously generous gold watch packages if they lose their seats to help them acclimate, which is external to their salaries, so they don't need to be covered twice.

Puja

[Banquo]

See, now I know the traditional argument for this one is that, "If we don't pay the MPs enough, then people in lucrative jobs won't want to come and be MPs and we'll be missing out on all that experience and education," but I have to say I disagree on the importance of this for a couple of reasons:

1) Ability to earn a good wage =!= competence or intelligence. This country is very far from a meritocracy, so the idea that talent is concentrated in the people earning big bucks is absolutely specious. And, even if it was true, we're already not paying enough to draw in the very top echelons (and that will go doubly so if we're banning outside jobs and pay), so what we're actually competing for is the mid-range people. Unless we're talking about doubling MPs pay, which I'm going to assume no-one is brave enough to suggest.

2) MPs currently earn £84k, not including expenses, allowances, and freebies (which are far from insubstantial). The average wage in the UK is £31k. They earn well over 3 x the average wage when everything is taken into account. They're fine - no-one who's an MP is every going to be struggling for money. Yes, there will be some people turned off if they can only earn X amount rather than Y, but are those the people who we really want to be in politics? We might have a bit more of a representative parliament if we had a few more average people standing for whom £84k + £20-30k in allowances would be a dream pay rise, and a fewer who would see it as a pittance.

Puja

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

That's a bit of a strawman- no-one is suggesting we chase people 'motivated solely by money'. Money will and does influence many peoples choice of career, but its not the only factor. The ability to understand and represent is not negated by the aspiration to earn well - you've sort of gone back to the premise that the aim is to trawl wealthy high earners for MPs, which isn't a good start point tbh, and not what I'm thinking- ....and frankly, the empathy and represent part is a vital component, but so is the ability to formulate ideas and understand their impact and legislate for them, esp in higher office (which is where I percieve we have issues, whichever camp you are in).

[Puja]

1- I presume you are poorly paid . I think the idea is to attract the best into politics relatively early (and keep them) rather than headhunt high earners. Then you kind of argue against yourself by saying, well we won't get the high 'achievers' unless we offer more money, which was the original suggestion- If its double, its double. These people do after all have a very important job as representatives and legislators.
2- and kind of the same again, it wouldn't be seen as a pittance if it were more. Mind, I do agree we don't need as many 'professional politicians' as it were.

We need to do something to improve the calibre of our representatives for sure.

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

That's a bit of a strawman- no-one is suggesting we chase people 'motivated solely by money'. Money will and does influence many peoples choice of career, but its not the only factor. The ability to understand and represent is not negated by the aspiration to earn well - you've sort of gone back to the premise that the aim is to trawl wealthy high earners for MPs, which isn't a good start point tbh, and not what I'm thinking- ....and frankly, the empathy and represent part is a vital component, but so is the ability to formulate ideas and understand their impact and legislate for them, esp in higher office (which is where I percieve we have issues, whichever camp you are in).

What is this discussion about if not chasing people motivated by money? Nobody earning £84k per year as a single salary is particularly constrained for money, especially not if they're also getting housing allowance, car allowance, food allowance, staff allowance, and half a dozen other things that add up to £30k+ on top. If you are in that position, all of your needs are met and a very large chunk of your most serious wants too, without you even having to have a concern over money.

As such, the difference between giving MPs £114k remuneration and giving them, let's say £180k for the sake of argument, is that we would be opening up the candidate pool to people who would not do the job for £114k, but instead prefers to have more money. Having the lower amount is not ruling out people who couldn't afford to do the job, but those who would rather earn more.

I'm not saying that preferring more money is necessarily a sin, but it is what we are discussing here.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I’d give them quite a bit more money, and wouldn’t complain if it was double - it’s a high pressure, high stress, public facing horrible job that opens you up to myriad channels of abuse. I’d also increase the golden goodbyes, particularly for those who haven’t been ministers and those who are unemployed after single digit years in office. If the aim is to increase the quality of MPs I’d also find a way of providing state funding for the selection process, though goodness knows what that would look like, as well as election campaigning.
Why We Get The Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman is very good on this topic, and in general.

[Banquo]

Not necessarily poorly, but certainly not as well as I'd like!

I'm not arguing against myself, but against the idea that I don't believe money is synonymous with quality and that, even if it did, we'd still not be getting the best so why are we chasing people motivated solely by money. I'd say that money =!= quality goes double when one of the qualities that we're looking for is to be able to understand and represent the populace as a whole.

Puja

That's a bit of a strawman- no-one is suggesting we chase people 'motivated solely by money'. Money will and does influence many peoples choice of career, but its not the only factor. The ability to understand and represent is not negated by the aspiration to earn well - you've sort of gone back to the premise that the aim is to trawl wealthy high earners for MPs, which isn't a good start point tbh, and not what I'm thinking- ....and frankly, the empathy and represent part is a vital component, but so is the ability to formulate ideas and understand their impact and legislate for them, esp in higher office (which is where I percieve we have issues, whichever camp you are in).

What is this discussion about if not chasing people motivated by money? Nobody earning £84k per year as a single salary is particularly constrained for money, especially not if they're also getting housing allowance, car allowance, food allowance, staff allowance, and half a dozen other things that add up to £30k+ on top. If you are in that position, all of your needs are met and a very large chunk of your most serious wants too, without you even having to have a concern over money.

As such, the difference between giving MPs £114k remuneration and giving them, let's say £180k for the sake of argument, is that we would be opening up the candidate pool to people who would not do the job for £114k, but instead prefers to have more money. Having the lower amount is not ruling out people who couldn't afford to do the job, but those who would rather earn more.

I'm not saying that preferring more money is necessarily a sin, but it is what we are discussing here.

Puja

Its discussing how to attract people into a difficult and demanding job/profession, where other jobs/professions who may value their skills more than we currently value politicians- and money is not everyone's sole motivation, but part of the equation. The phrase you used was 'motivated solely by money'- and that's not what you want in a politician anyway; I have a fair few high achieving/earning friends, and they really are not 'solely motivated by money'. And as I said, its not about head hunting those already high earners, but looking to attract those smart folks who have choices.

[Son of Mathonwy]

As such, the difference between giving MPs £114k remuneration and giving them, let's say £180k for the sake of argument,

Just for the record I wouldn't give them that sort of pay rise, maybe just another £20-30k to coincide with taking away their second jobs, consultancies and other potential bribes (if they must be bribed, let the state do it!).

[Puja]

As such, the difference between giving MPs £114k remuneration and giving them, let's say £180k for the sake of argument,

Just for the record I wouldn't give them that sort of pay rise, maybe just another £20-30k to coincide with taking away their second jobs, consultancies and other potential bribes (if they must be bribed, let the state do it!).

Would £20-30k really make a dent in replacing the income lost from second jobs and consultancies? I was given to understand one could turn quite a good living from being a part-time consultant and MP.

Puja

[Zhivago]

admittedly from 2016... but still interesting

[Banquo]

admittedly from 2016... but still interesting

Singapore and the USA pay some serious wad.

[Son of Mathonwy]

As such, the difference between giving MPs £114k remuneration and giving them, let's say £180k for the sake of argument,

Just for the record I wouldn't give them that sort of pay rise, maybe just another £20-30k to coincide with taking away their second jobs, consultancies and other potential bribes (if they must be bribed, let the state do it!).

Would £20-30k really make a dent in replacing the income lost from second jobs and consultancies? I was given to understand one could turn quite a good living from being a part-time consultant and MP.

Puja

To some yes, to others no.

Of course a big raise right now would be deeply unpopular. So I expect Truss to announce it shortly.

[Zhivago]

admittedly from 2016... but still interesting

Singapore and the USA pay some serious wad.

Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.

Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.

[Banquo]

admittedly from 2016... but still interesting

Singapore and the USA pay some serious wad.

Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.

Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.

No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.

We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.

[Zhivago]

Singapore and the USA pay some serious wad.

Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.

Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.

No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.

We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.

Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.

[Mellsblue]

Paying ok money to the people who ultimately decide the fate of the country doesn’t seem, erm, ok to me.
I’ve had this battle as both an officer and a councillor at local authorities. Getting vfm for a public servant’s wage is a small sweet spot but 90% of the time wages are far below that sweet spot.
Eg, I get paid approx 30% below market value in my current role but I suck it up as the pension is pretty good, holidays and flexi time mean I get to spend loads of time with my kids and my long suffering wife earns enough that I don’t have to worry about maximising my earnings, plus it’s still a good salary. That said, as soon as my kids don’t want to be seen dead with me I’m almost certainly back off to the private sector to get paid what the market determines I’m worth and I don’t get even 1% of the shoite and stress that MPs have to deal with. The 52 days a year (yep, I had to double check the maths too when they were selling the job to me) in annual leave and flexi will be hard to leave behind, though.