Jump to content

Grenfell tower tragedy


Dr Gloom
 Share

Recommended Posts

  On 16/06/2017 at 09:53, Andrew said:

 

so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses?

Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions.

Expand  

 

While I totally get your point, these are people who could probably earn more outside of politics if they wanted (see Osborne and Johnson). They should be above it but they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 09:53, Andrew said:

 

so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses?

Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions.

Expand  

Is that sarcasm?

 

Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc?

 

It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:00, Renton said:

Is that sarcasm?

 

Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc?

 

It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. 

Expand  

Yup it should be about attracting the best. What we attract now are losers, slackers and kiddie fiddlers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 09:53, Andrew said:

 

so 2 or 3 times the national average plus expenses?

Yeah they definitely need a pay rise so they don't have to take these conflict of interest positions.

Expand  

Probably not the right place or time for the debate but it's not much in terms of basic salary relative to the importance and responsibilty of the role. The expenses issue still hasn't properly been addressed and by paying them more that could probably be stopped altogether. I appreciate your post is sarcastic but, to me, they should receive more in terms of salary but not get the expenses which would lead to more transparency. The conflict of interests could be partially addressed be not allowing other business interests as previously mentioned. Your attitude is actually beneficial to the status quo though and representative of the way it would be portrayed in the media. Of course MPs themselves are largely to blame for attitudes towards them thanks to things like the expenses scandal. I think we need to ask ourselves if the current system is provided the best people possible to do what are extremely important jobs. One look at Cabinet and politicians in general answers that. Where I work we've got several contractors on our books working for a government agency who earn more than MPs. Now they're good software developers but they're also '10 a penny' in terms of what is available in London (for example) where a lot of them work. It's not really difficult to see why there's a dearth of talented politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:00, Renton said:

Is that sarcasm?

 

Do you not think the 600 odd MPs that actually run the country should be on more money than GPs, head teachers, CEOs of small companies, league one football players etc?

 

It's a fucking important job and should have remuneration that reflects this. It should also be full time and free of CoI. I'd suggest £150k starting basic, which is only enough to get you a mortgage on a 2 bed flat in London. 

Expand  

 

Half and half to be honest, I get the point that increasing the salary would attract better people but they're hardly hard up as it stands.

 

To suggest a solution to something like this is that we should pay people who are already fairly well paid (compared to the majority of the population) more money just...sounds shitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:06, Alex said:

Probably not the right place or time for the debate but it's not much in terms of basic salary relative to the importance and responsibilty of the role. The expenses issue still hasn't properly been addressed and by paying them more that could probably be stopped altogether. I appreciate your post is sarcastic but, to me, they should receive more in terms of salary but not get the expenses which would lead to more transparency. The conflict of interests could be partially addressed be not allowing other business interests as previously mentioned. Your attitude is actually beneficial to the status quo though and representative of the way it would be portrayed in the media. Of course MPs themselves are largely to blame for attitudes towards them thanks to things like the expenses scandal. I think we need to ask ourselves if the current system is provided the best people possible to do what are extremely important jobs. One look at Cabinet and politicians in general answers that. Where I work we've got several contractors on our books working for a government agency who earn more than MPs. Now they're good software developers but they're also '10 a penny' in terms of what is available in London (for example) where a lot of them work. It's not really difficult to see why there's a dearth of talented politicians.

Expand  

Publicly subsidized drinking den.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:06, Andrew said:

 

Half and half to be honest, I get the point that increasing the salary would attract better people but they're hardly hard up as it stands.

 

To suggest a solution to something like this is that we should pay people who are already fairly well paid (compared to the majority of the population) more money just...sounds shitty.

Expand  

 

You're not wrong on the optics element. Highly contentious to go into an election with a view of paying MPs more money.

 

Although if they did it with a 'no moonlighting' clause, that would be more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:08, Rayvin said:

 

You're not wrong on the optics element. Highly contentious to go into an election with a view of paying MPs more money.

 

Although if they did it with a 'no moonlighting' clause, that would be more palatable.

Expand  

Once we leave the EU we can go back to 1/5 or 1/6 of a Gill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could pay MPs 500k a year and a hell of a lot of them would still seek more income. 

 

They'd also get around any demand to sell rental properties by shifting them to relatives etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Queen is going to the Tower today and to meet the victims.

May is apparently going to the hospitals to visit them after coming under pressure.  She really needs to fucking resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 16/06/2017 at 11:16, wykikitoon said:

the Queen is going to the Tower today and to meet the victims.

May is apparently going to the hospitals to visit them after coming under pressure.  She really needs to fucking resign.

Expand  

 

Easier for her staff to control the situation inside a hospital than out and about, definitely a response to the shit she got for not talking to anyone though.

 

The express today going with "is this the EUs fault"(no) and a sun reporter has been caught impersonating a victims relative at a hospital trying to get information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spoke with an architect who told me they're working on 2 jobs that are re-cladding high rise.  They have been put on hold.

2 mins later got an email through from a cladding supplier 'reassuring' us that the cladding they use isnt the same as what was on the highrise.

Panic in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''German construction companies have been banned from using plastic-filled cladding, such as Reynobond PE, on towers more than 22 metres high since the 1980s when regulations were brought in to improve fire safety at residential blocks. '' Guardian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.