news & politics:discussion

[kaosmark2]

Just now, steviewevie said:

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

I think there's something to be said for trying to sensibly introduce new ways to manage things instead of Tories and Labour just trying to cycle clicking undo on what the other did. The u-turns on pledges to undo sh*tty Tory policies suck, and they really hit emotionally, but sensible holistic govt wouldn't be "lets go back to the noughties" and is actually a "how do we fix this, and how do we fix this in a way the Tories can't just vote undo". 

Ofc, I don't know how many of these Starmer will actually pull off. Or gives any level of sh*t about.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

That's not actually how the overall economy works though. Even if its taxed, the wealthy getting wealthier doesn't keep the money flowing in the economy.

It's only relevant if you believe in the theory that the British financial sector needs to compete with other countries for high-rollers and big risk-taking "talent" in terms of individuals, which actually just leads to an international race to the bottom. Bonus caps work. High tax rates work. This won't trickle down to ordinary people.

In a world where Labour need to raise funds for their green investment plans, if they can show that bankers bonuses raises X amount then it’s less headroom taken up from borrowing and less reason for other taxes to go up. There will be less chance of the OBR tearing apart any Labour budget and risking the £ crashing like under Truss.

As I’ve said there is only a certain amount of Tory policies that Labour can reverse so they probably imagine that this is is one of the least vital ones so won’t use up Parliamentary time/political capital trying to reverse it. I don’t think this is a u-turn though as Labour never said they would reverse it?

Ultimately I doubt any of general public really have given this 2 thoughts and won’t make much of a difference anyway.

40 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If triple a normal salary is too low for a MP to work in parliament, that means they were looking to exploit their political standing for their own gain, and I'm fine with them f**king off.

There is an argument that to get better calibre MPs you need to raise MPs salaries. If you did this then some MPs wouldn’t feel the need to take 2nd jobs plus top talent would be more interested in the job rather than looking at the private sector. You could raise MPs salaries but then also tighten rules on 2nd jobs too which might make it seem more fair all in all. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

The overall inequality levels matter as well. We are back to Mandelson being relaxed about people getting filty rich whilst partying with Osbourne on Russian oligarchs yachts.

Sorry but I think that’s a bit of an over-exaggeration. Labour not reversing the bankers cap doesn’t mean we are back to inequality not mattering. 

[Guest]

 

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

The people who felt let down early in Blair were reacting to the words in their heads and not anything blair had said, a bit like how corbynistas feel let down by what they've made up about starmer.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

 

Unless they can wave a magic wand this has political failure shouting loud.

[lazyred]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Sorry but I think that’s a bit of an over-exaggeration. Labour not reversing the bankers cap doesn’t mean we are back to inequality not mattering. 

Its going back to being overly cosy with the city. Its symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

[Neil]

The failure will come with every passenger blaming the govt for the cost of the travel and any price rises 

[Guest]

Just now, lazyred said:

It’s going back to being overly cosy with the city. It’s symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

Labour have become more friendly with the City but I don’t think it feeds into that narrative at all. I doubt it’ll make much impact. 

[kaosmark2]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

In a world where Labour need to raise funds for their green investment plans, if they can show that bankers bonuses raises X amount then it’s less headroom taken up from borrowing and less reason for other taxes to go up. There will be less chance of the OBR tearing apart any Labour budget and risking the £ crashing like under Truss.

As I’ve said there is only a certain amount of Tory policies that Labour can reverse so they probably imagine that this is is one of the least vital ones so won’t use up Parliamentary time/political capital trying to reverse it. I don’t think this is a u-turn though as Labour never said they would reverse it?

Ultimately I doubt any of general public really have given this 2 thoughts and won’t make much of a difference anyway.

There is an argument that to get better calibre MPs you need to raise MPs salaries. If you did this then some MPs wouldn’t feel the need to take 2nd jobs plus top talent would be more interested in the job rather than looking at the private sector. You could raise MPs salaries but then also tighten rules on 2nd jobs too which might make it seem more fair all in all. 

It raises pretty minimal amounts proportional to various policies. I did say that I thought the material difference was pretty minimal, and it's mostly the optics. The main issue politically is it removes a potential attack line and feeds into the narrative of "all politicians are the same".

Wrt MP salaries, I agree that they should be well paid, instead of the 1900s situation where only those that were independently wealthy could afford to make laws. My issue is that you need to tighten rules on 2nd jobs, and not have insanely high salaries and insanely high expenses. I don't think triple full-time minimum wage makes it low-paid!

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

cool, and cool hair too,  shame about it being on GB news but can't have everything.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Its going back to being overly cosy with the city. Its symbolic and sends the wrong message feeding into the false "no different from the Tories" narrative. It also means that in April/May if the bank bonuses come out as excessive Labour will have nothing to say about it.

well...we're a service based economy...and the city is our cash cow. 

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It raises pretty minimal amounts proportional to various policies. I did say that I thought the material difference was pretty minimal, and it's mostly the optics. The main issue politically is it removes a potential attack line and feeds into the narrative of "all politicians are the same".

Wrt MP salaries, I agree that they should be well paid, instead of the 1900s situation where only those that were independently wealthy could afford to make laws. My issue is that you need to tighten rules on 2nd jobs, and not have insanely high salaries and insanely high expenses. I don't think triple full-time minimum wage makes it low-paid!

Me I'd link mp pay rises to nmw rises. so MPs only get a rise if the lowest paid get the same rise.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

Me I'd link mp pay rises to nmw rises. so MPs only get a rise if the lowest paid get the same rise.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. MPs get paid triple FT minimum wage with no expenses. Or double + travel expenses. Something in that vein. High enough to keep it well-paid and a reflection on it being a difficult job, but also still directly tied to minimum wage.

[Skip997]

It's a really tricky one

Make the wages too low and you're likely to get under qualified people, too high and you're getting "career politicians" who don't give a damn about the country or even which party they work for.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It raises pretty minimal amounts proportional to various policies. I did say that I thought the material difference was pretty minimal, and it's mostly the optics. The main issue politically is it removes a potential attack line and feeds into the narrative of "all politicians are the same".

Wrt MP salaries, I agree that they should be well paid, instead of the 1900s situation where only those that were independently wealthy could afford to make laws. My issue is that you need to tighten rules on 2nd jobs, and not have insanely high salaries and insanely high expenses. I don't think triple full-time minimum wage makes it low-paid!

I really don’t think it does feed into that narrative in fact I reckon it barely features in any narrative at all for voters. How many times has bankers bonuses been mentioned since end of October? I haven’t seen it once so it’s not an attack line Labour have been using so it’s not like they are missing out.

I’m not saying MPs are low paid but I feel there is room to increase their pay, cut down on the amount of MPs and tighten rules in 2nd jobs so you can improve the calibre of candidates. MPs expenses are needed as they pay for the running of their offices inc team etc. 

[Neil]

28 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Yeah that's what I was thinking. MPs get paid triple FT minimum wage with no expenses. Or double + travel expenses. Something in that vein. High enough to keep it well-paid and a reflection on it being a difficult job, but also still directly tied to minimum wage.

i'd also tie -in public sector wages , so mps can't give themselves a better deal than the country gets from those politicians,.

[Crazyfool01]

25 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

It's a really tricky one

Make the wages too low and you're likely to get under qualified people, too high and you're getting "career politicians" who don't give a damn about the country or even which party they work for.

Surely not many of them are qualified ? Unless you count Eton as some kind of qualification 

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Surely not many of them are qualified ? Unless you count Eton as some kind of qualification 

we need our politicians to be smart people not dullards who would fail staking shelves or flipping burgers.

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

we need our politicians to be smart people not dullards who would fail staking shelves or flipping burgers.

Look what we got 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Look what we got 

true - if we drop the wages its the best we'll get.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

true - if we drop the wages its the best we'll get.

Or we get people that have had real life experience of dealing with people and speaking to people that are on lower pay rather than billionaire prime ministers that don’t give a toss about anything other than lining pockets . Lower pay doesn’t equal stupidity just means at points you’ve not had the same life chances 

[Neil]

Just now, Crazyfool01 said:

Or we get people that have had real life experience of dealing with people and speaking to people that are on lower pay rather than billionaire prime ministers that don’t give a toss about anything other than lining pockets . Lower pay doesn’t equal stupidity just means at points you’ve not had the same life chances 

we need to do more to get better people. dunno how that is done, 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Neil said:

we need to do more to get better people. dunno how that is done, 

That I agree with 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

That I agree with 

cutting wages won't do it. some level of public service experience might be the answer ..... but that would exclude everyone without that experience.