|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 9, 2021 15:19:40 GMT
I'm 100% certain this is all above board but really how can anyone have respect for a bunch of people who are allegedly running the country yet have enough spare time to have a second job that pays £900k a year?
The bit about WFH in the BVI is taking the piss a bit though and it appears from the voting record that he's barely been in The House so perhaps he should be asked to pick 1 career and stick with it?
I know this applies to politicians of all parties.....
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 9, 2021 15:39:53 GMT
Depends how long the second job took of their time. What it pays is less relevant. I think there needs to be closer scrutiny of why people are donating money and in the case of Keith Vaz and the like, where his unexplained wealth has come from.
A bigger issue for me is a facility to boot people out of politics at all levels. For example, most professions will have a professional body that can strike people off. I'd like to see the same in politics for misconduct so that people are kept out of local councils and, more importantly, kept out the Lords.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 9, 2021 15:46:04 GMT
I agree. There is no way he can do work which someone sensible is prepared to pay £900K for and also carry out his full duties as an MP. However sometimes these investment houses and banks pay ludicrous salaries: a friend of mine who was a Solicitor ended up in merchant banking in London because he couldn't hack the law. He ended up getting annual bonuses of several hundred thousand £'s which at the time was about 10 times what I earned in a year. He was still a numpty and much as I like to celebrate people's success, I felt somewhat sick when he turned up in his new (bought for cash) 911 with the ubiquitous blond in the passenger seat. He became a real arrogant tosser and I haven't spoken to him or seen him for about 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Nov 9, 2021 16:29:59 GMT
I think it said on the BBC website that he was paid about £156k for 140 hours work for the BVI stuff. And for other work in 2021 through the same law firm he was paid about £280k for 300 hours work.
140 hours work is 4 x 35 hour weeks (and of course most professionals work significantly more than 35 hours per week) - Gee whizz that's a lot of money per hour. An absurd amount, but if that's what somebody or some company or national government is prepared to pay...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 9, 2021 16:49:58 GMT
Originally, wasn't being an MP a second job for people in the professions? Lawyers and such?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 9, 2021 17:15:26 GMT
Originally, wasn't being an MP a second job for people in the professions? Lawyers and such? Surely if you were a wealthy landowner then running the estate was the main job and whilst you were in London doing estate business or legalities you popped into the Commons for a bit of a shout. Your land was likely in your constituency so any visitors could buttonhole you on local matters. Boris was a Journalist, Blair a lawyer and Cameron married into one of those landowners described above, so realistically yes: MPs aren’t supposed to be making a career of it from a young age but aspire to do it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 9, 2021 17:20:09 GMT
, so realistically yes: MPs aren’t supposed to be making a career of it from a young age but aspire to do it as well. Exactly. People who complain about career politicians are often the same people who complain about second jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Nov 9, 2021 19:36:24 GMT
It is a tricky point though. I imagine that most members of the Great British Public would think that being an MP should be seen by the incumbent as a full-time job. One for which they are paid fairly handsomely and in which they also get a lot of time off.
In some contracts of employment there are terms that explicitly prohibit someone from taking a second job without the express permission of somebody very senior in that company. Perhaps the same should apply to MPs.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not completely against the idea of MPs having another job, or jobs - but where the result appears egregious then the particular MP is not helping his or her own cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 9, 2021 20:27:20 GMT
Unfortunately they are not actually that handsomely paid. Really capable and clever people can earn far more doing other things and moreover don't have to put up with us scrutinising their every move.
Meaning that politics risks becomes the preserve of those with a surfeit of ambition over talent (a category in which I include Johnson), leavened with a few noble souls who do genuinely do it for the good of the community. But the latter I fear are in the minority and certainly rarely make it off the back benches.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 9, 2021 20:30:44 GMT
Depends how long the second job took of their time. What it pays is less relevant. I think there needs to be closer scrutiny of why people are donating money and in the case of Keith Vaz and the like, where his unexplained wealth has come from. A bigger issue for me is a facility to boot people out of politics at all levels. For example, most professions will have a professional body that can strike people off. I'd like to see the same in politics for misconduct so that people are kept out of local councils and, more importantly, kept out the Lords. Isn't it obvious why people donate money (at least while they are alive)? Influence, preferment and gongs. And that goes for both parties although, Vaz notwithstanding, it does seem to be a particular Tory predilection. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 9, 2021 21:03:05 GMT
it does seem to be a particular Tory predilection. Not really. The unions bankroll Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 9, 2021 21:18:14 GMT
it does seem to be a particular Tory predilection. Not really. The unions bankroll Labour. Yes, I’m often surprised at the lack of scrutiny of the Union-Labour issue in a workforce where unionisation is at the point of “not quite irrelevant but nearly” due to lower take up and legislation that achieves much of what Unions were created for in the first place. In being the chief funder of a major political party one of their main purposes now is perpetuating the “them” and “us” mentality when union leaders are definitely more them than us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2021 21:23:54 GMT
I do not mind if an MP has a second job as long as the first is to represent the constituents. I would dearly love the oft repeated phrase "It is not in my interest to represent you", to the history books. Also that the role of the MP to be to represent those constituents first and the party/government second.
Not too much to ask is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 10, 2021 0:21:29 GMT
it does seem to be a particular Tory predilection. Not really. The unions bankroll Labour. Yes but that's hardly secretive and Labour is the party of the Unions. The clue is sort of in the name. I know the Tory party is your thing but I'm afraid to many of us who aren't tribally political, it's just a revolting cesspit of cronyism, backhanders and jobs for the boys and their families. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 10, 2021 8:39:21 GMT
…….the Tory party is ……… just a revolting cesspit of cronyism, backhanders and jobs for the boys and their families. I don’t think the Unions, and therefore the party that represents them, behave any differently in their higher echelons. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 10, 2021 8:56:56 GMT
Not really. The unions bankroll Labour. Yes but that's hardly secretive and Labour is the party of the Unions. The clue is sort of in the name. I know the Tory party is your thing but I'm afraid to many of us who aren't tribally political, it's just a revolting cesspit of cronyism, backhanders and jobs for the boys and their families. Is the concern about the money or secrecy? Because even the income that caused the Owen Patterson issue is listed in the Members Interests and so open to the public and press. The unions are awful because they hold the country back, they’ve prevented so much progress in productivity, from driverless trains to the underperforming NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 10, 2021 9:19:39 GMT
I think a lot of the issue here is the perception of the public. How many people can command an hourly rate of nearly £1,000? I would think the average man in the street would find that rate of pay obscene which then results in zero sympathy and a very easy target for Labour to make allegations of sleaze.
The Tories bring this kind of attack on themselves by being blind to the perception of others, probably because their social circles mix them with like people and they then believe that what they experience day to day is normal.
I know many doctors who fall into the same trap: they all complain about how much they need to contribute to their pensions (about 12%) and about the pension charges for overfunding or over contributing (one had over £76K paid in to his pension in one year) but they fail to see that they are actually in a massively privileged position and will receive an index linked pension with widows benefits which will start at c£55K. 99% of the population won't even get half that as a pension and a huge percentage won't even get 10% of that amount. However because they all socialise with other doctors they think it is the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 10, 2021 9:25:43 GMT
Yes but that's hardly secretive and Labour is the party of the Unions. The clue is sort of in the name. I know the Tory party is your thing but I'm afraid to many of us who aren't tribally political, it's just a revolting cesspit of cronyism, backhanders and jobs for the boys and their families. Is the concern about the money or secrecy? Because even the income that caused the Owen Patterson issue is listed in the Members Interests and so open to the public and press. The unions are awful because they hold the country back, they’ve prevented so much progress in productivity, from driverless trains to the underperforming NHS. Neither although more the lack of transparency. And I'm less fussed in a way about Paterson because that was just an obvious breach. It's the absolute lack of transparency about what the money of donors gets them. I think there is a huge problem with the chumocracy - especially under this government. And I'm not just going on what I read. I'm no Union fan, but there whether you agree with them or not, broadly you know their objectives. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 10, 2021 9:34:53 GMT
I think a lot of the issue here is the perception of the public. How many people can command an hourly rate of nearly £1,000? I would think the average man in the street would find that rate of pay obscene which then results in zero sympathy and a very easy target for Labour to make allegations of sleaze. The Tories bring this kind of attack on themselves by being blind to the perception of others, probably because their social circles mix them with like people and they then believe that what they experience day to day is normal. I know many doctors who fall into the same trap: they all complain about how much they need to contribute to their pensions (about 12%) and about the pension charges for overfunding or over contributing (one had over £76K paid in to his pension in one year) but they fail to see that they are actually in a massively privileged position and will receive an index linked pension with widows benefits which will start at c£55K. 99% of the population won't even get half that as a pension and a huge percentage won't even get 10% of that amount. However because they all socialise with other doctors they think it is the norm. Umm. Talking as one in an industry where hourly rates in the City can hit that level, very few people actually see that. Normally that is the rate your employer charges for you and you receive a fraction of it. I will just point out that it's the 11th today and so far this month I've logged 90hrs. If I divide my salary by the hours I do, it's a surprisingly low hourly rate. So whilst it's fair that people in my situation can be guilty of not realising their privilege, so others can be guilty of just seeing a large number and not realising how much hard and skilled work is required in return. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 10, 2021 10:40:07 GMT
My calculation was done purely on the hours he worked and the amount he said he received. Surely he doesn't have to quote an employer's charge out rate for the amount he received?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 10, 2021 10:52:09 GMT
I don't think MPs get paid enough to be honest. It's something around £82k basic as a normal MP isn't it?
That's really not very much for one of a small group who are expected to contribute to running the country.
I'd be supportive of a doubling (or more perhaps) of that on the basis that they were held more accountable, had a clear list of things to do, e.g. spend time doing constituency work, and were expected to follow standard requirements around this such as expenses.
If it turned out they were rubbish then I'd want some straightforward mechanism for their constituents to be able to elect them, perhaps that already exists with the recall petition.
It'd be nice to impose some sort of restriction on donations - both to the party and the individual MPs and have a central fund that came out of the Treasury budget to enable some low-level campaigning for each party/representative. I fear we're slowly heading down the US route where $Billions get spent come election time.
I've noticed at my own work that people can be very unaware of the perception of others around them and also unaware of the situation of others who are immediately below them in the hierarchy.
Fee earners have been happy to bend my ear while I'm making a coffee about how shit they think their bonus has been while presumably not realising that not only do I not routinely get a bonus the direct support to them, i.e. the people who do the day to day work that allows them to go out and earn the fees, don't get a bonus either.
|
|
|
|
Post by garry on Nov 10, 2021 11:37:12 GMT
I agree that MP salaries are too low. How many on this forum would be taking a pay cut if they became an MP? How many could not live their current lifestyle on an MPs salary?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 10, 2021 11:48:37 GMT
I agree that MP salaries are too low. How many on this forum would be taking a pay cut if they became an MP? How many could not live their current lifestyle on an MPs salary? I agree. An MP should be on a minimum £150K and possibly £200K (although they might start to fall foul of their own pension restrictions at that level). Their expenses and the funding of a second property in the city adds considerably to their lifetime income but to get well qualified people you have to pay reasonably competitive salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 10, 2021 11:52:49 GMT
What is a “well qualified” MP? They’re supposed to be representing their constituency against a backdrop of party policy and manifesto commitments. They don’t need to be barristers, surgeons or nuclear engineers to do that - they need the gift of the gab, a grasp of reality and an understanding that their electorate wants to feel safe and have opportunities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 10, 2021 11:58:47 GMT
Agreed, we don't just want the house full of 'professionals'.
Don't they qualify for some super fantastic pension if they serve a whole term (presumably 5 years)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 10, 2021 12:02:06 GMT
10 years I think. It’s why Blair held on to PM for so long and annoyed Brown. Their ordinary pension is also based on 1/40th. No one else would get that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2021 12:34:41 GMT
Why on earth should we fund an ability to buy a second property in London?
They could have taken over the Union Jack club and used it for overnight stays where required.
Something similar should be a realistic option and much cheaper while reducing travel requirements too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 10, 2021 13:21:21 GMT
I agree that MP salaries are too low. How many on this forum would be taking a pay cut if they became an MP? How many could not live their current lifestyle on an MPs salary? It'd be difficult but the call girls and rent boys would make up for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 10, 2021 14:00:41 GMT
Why on earth should we fund an ability to buy a second property in London? They could have taken over the Union Jack club and used it for overnight stays where required. Something similar should be a realistic option and much cheaper while reducing travel requirements too. Much like the Olympic village every 4 years I suspect that would turn the Jack into an all out sex fest on a Thursday night before returning to their constituencies for Friday surgery. |
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Nov 10, 2021 16:11:36 GMT
£82k is about 2 and a half times the average UK full time salary so they are indeed fairly handsomely paid, as I said above. I chose my words carefully - I agree entirely that clever and capable people can, and do, earn far higher salaries even as employees all over the country. In the company I work for (head office in Cheltenham) there are perhaps about 30 employed colleagues earning £80k-plus and who are not Directors or Executives.
But Tim and others are right that it's not desirable for all our MPs to be clever and capable in that sense. We just need enough of them to be real-world smart with a genuine interest in making society better (in whatever sense) for all. Speaking with first-hand experience, many clever and capable people who I have worked with over the years are neither real-world smart, nor have much interest in making things better for anyone other than just themselves.
And to the point about hourly pay to the worker versus hourly charge-out rates by the company - the story on the BBC website suggests that Mr Cox was paid circa £1000 per hour (edit for clarity: the amounts he had declared as earnings and the hours worked according to the story), rather than that being the amount paid to the firm and not all of it going to him.
Back in 1994 I was being charged out at £85 per hour by my accountancy firm, whilst actually being paid just under £11 gross per hour. Nice work for KPMG Bristol at the time - but that's just how it works, as Jonny rightly says.
|
|
