Brexit

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 minutes ago, David said:

If you don't like the adult discussions stick to the children's table, chief.

I mean, it was meant more as a light hearted retort to your very detailed and long responses, but please show me the way 

[David]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I mean, it was meant more as a light hearted retort to your very detailed and long responses, but please show me the way 

I was jesting mate, no offence meant.

In all seriousness, this one thread on a wrestling forum is akin to a paradise of healthy discussion and debate on Brexit for the most part. Compare the discussions here to social media, for example. Night and day. 

I don't always agree with everyone here, but by fuck do I learn a lot from reading what everyone else has posted. It's also done in a reasonably adult and intelligent manner, which is refreshing.

[Hannibal Scorch]

3 minutes ago, David said:

I was jesting mate, no offence meant.

In all seriousness, this one thread on a wrestling forum is akin to a paradise of healthy discussion and debate on Brexit for the most part. Compare the discussions here to social media, for example. Night and day. 

I don't always agree with everyone here, but by fuck do I learn a lot from reading what everyone else has posted. It's also done in a reasonably adult and intelligent manner, which is refreshing.

none taken :-) I have probably learned more about what a dick I was to believe the leave campaign, and the damage caused, then I have on social media. I agree this thread is very insightful. It's a real shame any conversation like this outside of this bubble using turns into a slanging match

Edited September 19, 2019 by Hannibal Scorch

[David]

3 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

The average salary for a secondary academy head exceeds that of an MP, by a considerable margin.  For the relative importance and responsibility of their job MPs earn a modest, at best, amount from their salary.  Party politics and maintaining positions within government are far more an issue than the salary.

George Washington was right about party politics in the 1700s.

The average MP is on a shade under £80,000 per year. They've enjoyed a wage rise of 22% in the past ten years, and enjoy an annual expense allowance for stamps and stationary alone of more than double what the average unemployed person gets to live on.

[Onyx2]

6 hours ago, David said:

just as relevant as a bicycle-riding, Waitrose-shopping berk from Essex.

I'll have you know I happen to shop at M&S. 

[Keith Houchen]

21 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

In what job would you expect the post-holder to pay for post that they send in the course of their job?

And the staff who work in the office.

Someone who wasn't racist went after David Lammy showing figures that he'd claimed about 100 times what Rees-Mogg claimed.  The Mogg figure was quickly debunked and Lammy gave a breakdown of where his claims went.  Most of it was on rent for his constituency office.  Don't know about you but I'd rather my MP had a constituency office where you could go in with any concerns as opposed to one without an office.

[David]

16 hours ago, johnnyboy said:

In what job would you expect the post-holder to pay for post that they send in the course of their job?

We're talking around £25 worth of stationary and stamps every fucking day of the year, including weekends and national holidays. In what world is that even normal? 

[David]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about the amount of letters they send or claiming they steal anything, I'm comparing that particular allowance to what a sizeable chunk of the population have to live on. To describe any aspect of an MP's financial life as "modest at best" is ridiculous. Especially when you see the roaring cunt they make it for the most part.

However, if you or anyone else thinks that what they do comes close to warranting a salary of that size, along with the related benefits, then fair enough. For me, it's a large part of why we're in the position we're in though. Not the entire reason, but a large part.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Yeah, paying the job less is definitely going to attract better candidates... 😳

[David]

Just now, Chest Rockwell said:

Yeah, paying the job less is definitely going to attract better candidates... 😳

In my experience some of the most savvy, knowledgeable and sensible people are those doing work for absolutely nothing in their local communities. Why is that? Because those positions attract people who are in it for the right reasons. 

I'm obviously not expecting MP's to work for free, but offering 80 grand a year and a load of generous expenses doesn't seem to really be working all that well going by the type of people we see in these positions of late. Maybe dropping the salary to something more along the lines of an average working wage will dissuade some of the careerist sociopaths that the position seems to attract? It'll always attract those who like the idea of holding a position of power, but still.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it could really get much worse than it is now, so it's worth a shot.

[David]

On another note, an interesting take in todays Financial Times:

Quote

Boris Johnson finally looks as though he is trying to secure a Brexit deal when the European Council next meets on October 17. After much uncertainty over the prime minister’s true intentions, this week ends with the feeling that Number 10 and the Brussels machine are finally getting down to business.

Several developments over the past few days suggest there is fresh momentum towards signing a revised Brexit pact.

First, it has become clear the PM is working to promote the idea of an all-island economy that encompasses Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The aim is to turn NI into a “special economic zone”, replacing the backstop by minimising as much as possible the scope for a border across the island of Ireland. We are some way from hard proposals being written down but the direction of travel is clear.

Second, Mr Johnson’s allies in the Democratic Unionist party have given initial support to his idea. DUP leader Arlene Foster said this week: “We are prepared to be flexible and look at Northern Ireland-specific solutions achieved with the support and consent of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.”

Third, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has also appeared open to the idea. After months in which the EU has vigorously defended the backstop, he said he had “no emotional attachment to [it]”. This suggests the EU might consider Mr Johnson’s plan at some point.

So some momentum towards a deal can be seen. Still, there are lots of reasons to doubt whether a pact will be sealed by October 31.

For a start, pinning down all the details of an all-island economy is a daunting task to do in just 30 days. There are lots of issues — relating to customs and the role of the European Court of Justice — that look difficult to resolve. One sign of just how difficult is that some UK officials are suggesting that Britain might like to agree the broad headings of a deal but defer the discussion of many of the thornier details until it is into the post-Brexit transition.

And then, even if a deal could be secured, many wonder whether the Commons would back it. This analysis by Cicero group crunches the numbers and suggests the Commons would give it the green light; but this relies on 17 Labour MPs backing a pact. One old Labour hand says this won’t happen: “Labour MPs are not minded to act as Johnson’s poodles.”

A Brexit deal by October 31 is not wholly out of the question. The factor that makes it a real possibility is that Mr Johnson urgently needs one.

The best scenario for the PM is to get a deal passed and then hold a celebratory election in which Nigel Farage’s Brexit party has few, if any, arguments to make, because Brexit will have been delivered. In these circumstances, Labour will plunge into disarray over Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to stop Brexit, and the Lib Dems’ pledge to revoke Article 50 will become meaningless.

A few interesting pieces of information in this article. 

After months of the EU refusing to budge on the backstop it seems that Juncker is open to negotiation. This will be key, and I can envisage a minor extension to allow this to be arranged and rubber-stamped, which would be no bad thing. We've already seen MEP's vote "overwhelmingly" to support an extension if the UK should ask for one, and this would be a valid reason for such a move.

Would we have seen this same level of willingness to talk had the real threat of a No Deal exit been so close and possible? I doubt it.

No surprise though that the sticking point could be the type of political shenanigans I mentioned earlier, with a Labour source reacting to the news by saying that “Labour MPs are not minded to act as Johnson’s poodles.”

yeah, great approach. A real chance to get a deal that would see us avoid No Deal and we're already hearing talk about how Labour won't play along with Boris. This is a great example of why cross-party negotiations would never have worked.

Then there's the possibility of an election. If Boris gets this deal sorted and over the line he'll have played a blinder. That paragraph I've bolded sums up how it would look going into an election in those circumstances. If this works out as it looks like it may do, even with another short extension to hammer out the details, I have no doubt the 'Tories will romp an election.

Not a certainty by any stretch, but still.

Edited September 20, 2019 by David

[David]

8 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

It's an absolute non-point unless you want to answer the question about in what job would you expect the post-holder to pay for the postage costs they incur in the execution of that role?

They should be using email. 

[BomberPat]

I don't think you can really fairly say, "well, some people are doing this work in their community for free..." - they're not. They're doing some of the work of an MP, but not all of it. 

If you drastically reduce an MP's salary, it doesn't stop attracting the posh boys, it starts attracting the richer posh boys - those who already have the money, either through inheritance or a former career. Because reducing the salary doesn't alter the mechanisms by which these people are channeled into positions of power, it doesn't alter the relationships between politics, big business, private schools, and the media.

You see a similar debate in the charity sector constantly. Every time it's revealed that the CEO of a charity is earning a lot of money, it's presented as a scandal. But what's the frame of reference? How do you determine how much of that money was translated into a net benefit? And if the charity weren't offering that kind of salary, would they be attracting someone with the relevant experience and skills? Probably not, because they wouldn't be competitive against equivalent roles in the private sector.

I'm not saying that MPs are living on a pittance - far from it, and there does need to modernise MPs' expenses, and bring salaries more in line with the rest of the country - but what are they earning in comparison to equivalent roles, if there are any, in the private sector? If MPs are making £80,000 a year, well, a lawyer with 15 years' experience in London can be earning more than twice that. It's all abstract because it's all more money than I'll ever see in my lifetime, but there still needs to be an effort made to offer a competitive enough salary to make it worth the while of, you'd hope, the top legal and political minds in the country.

 

6 minutes ago, David said:

They should be using email. 

Is there a centralised database of the email addresses of their constituents?

Edited September 20, 2019 by BomberPat

[David]

1 minute ago, BomberPat said:

I'm not saying that MPs are living on a pittance - far from it, and there does need to modernise MPs' expenses, and bring salaries more in line with the rest of the country - but what are they earning in comparison to equivalent roles, if there are any, in the private sector? If MPs are making £80,000 a year, well, a lawyer with 15 years' experience in London can be earning more than twice that.

It was the notion that £80,000 a year for what an MP has to do was described as "modest at best" in a world where those same MP's are given twice the amount to spend on fucking stamps what an unemployed person has to jump through hoops to get to live on.

It's ridiculous. 

5 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Is there a centralised database of the email addresses of their constituents?

In 2019 you'd hope so, surely.

[BomberPat]

1 minute ago, David said:

In 2019 you'd hope so, surely.

I'm not so sure.

I don't live in the UK, admittedly, but I don't think the government here have my personal email address. The only reason they have my work email is because I work for them. 

If I decide on a new email address tomorrow, would I think to inform the government? If I move to a new constituency, would I think to email my local MP's office and say, "by the way, it's x_joker666_x@vampirefreaks.com?". To say nothing of disadvantaging constituents without access to email.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think it's a gross simplification to say, "they should be using email" when it comes to governmental communication.