I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
That's an interesting observation, not sure how it computes with inflation etc but in 2000 the salary was sub £50k (was under £44k when labour came to power in 97). So it seems to have increased quite a bit the last 20 years (think it's roughly £75k now?).
From what I can see of it he had the figures (on an ipad) but the interviewer seemed to see the chance of making a Paxman-type point out of him not immediately having them at his finger tips (on Womans Hour?).
It re-enforces my prejudice that you can't beat a good old 'analogue' bit of paper with the figures on (the interviewer had her notes on a piece of paper in her hand).
I can see the headlines now: "Technophobe terrorist loving geography teacher beardy bloke doesn't even have an I-pad - so called election manifesto scribbled on the back of a fag packet in crayon... IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS BLOKE WOLVES WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!"
Not really fussed about whether he had the numbers ready for any random question. I orgainse holidays around Europe, and when I have to price a tour, I reckeck everything - not just glibly spew numbers out. Let's be honest, it's not great, but the question will always be whether the numbers add up to pay for the program, not whether he can remember them pat.
While we await @Dippenhall's explanation, this page neatly shows the latest GDP situation for Britain and for the Eurozone. Of course one quarter on its own should not be over analysed, and I have heard predictions that eurozone growth may ease back by the end of the year. However it shows exactly what sensible Remainers feared - that UK GDP would gradually slow, and decouple from the EU as the Eurozone picked up.
personally I thought that effect might kick in during summer 2017, so to see it already now is a bit of a shock. You'd think the HM Opposition might seize on these figures in the election debate, but oh, no, we can't be seen to criticise the consequences of "the will of the people", can we?
Unfortunately we live in a post truth world, so any attempt to use facts and figures would be political suicide. You'd simply be accused to picking and choosing figures to suit your argument, and you're unpatriotic to suggest Britain can't do great on it's own.
This is the clear danger of the anti-expert, anti-fact propaganda of the last few years. We'll drive off a cliff and nobody who could stop us will be listened to or believed, whilst others will stay quite as they'd rather be the driver of a doomed bus than a passenger on another.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
In what way is he a hypocrite and May not? And in what way does her bench have quality?
On record that Corbyn has bullied his backbenchers into voting the way he instructs when his record as a backbencher voting against the whip is totally unbelievable. Screams hypocrisy to me.
His Home Secretary should he win will be Diane Abbott and chancellor John McDonnell. Both of whom are poor choices in my opinion. As for conservative front bench they are not any better.
With you all the way on Abbott but McDonnell seems at least OK.
McDonnell might look like someone's favourite uncle but he is an outright Trot. What's worse is that he now won't admit or let on exactly just how extreme his views are.
My problem with Corbyn is this: The manifesto is not hard left at all in a European context. But that is where he comes from. Him. Abbott and McDonnell. I've seen the hard left close -up, thank you very much and I detest them as much as I detest the hard right Tories. The hard left disguises its true intentions until it gains power. The hard left took control of the Labour party in the mid 80s and Liverpool is the place where you saw the result in practice. It took Neil Kinnock to root them out and John Smith to finish the job. "Hard" anything leads to authoritarianism, corruption and intimidation. It ought to have no place in British politics.
Of course there are many young people (on CL too) who have no idea what I am on about. But Corbyn is older than me. I remember him from those days. I don't believe for one minute he or McDonnell have changed. Abbott has the further disadvantage of being thick. That "change of hairstyle" comment was just crass.
Yet unfortunately, he will count my vote for Clive Efford as a vote for him. And if he keeps her majority down, we will be stuck with him and the entire Momentum crew (for which read Soshulist Workah) as the main opposition for five years. What a grim scenario.
I used to run with the Revolutionary Communist Group (about 35 years ago) so trust me when I say that Cobyn is not hard left. He is soft left it is just that our politics have moved so far to the right he appears hard left merely on the virtue of standing still.
Incidentally I am now quite sure that I was the only member of the RCG who was not an undercover officer. I am not sure membership ever got over 15 mind.
In what way is he a hypocrite and May not? And in what way does her bench have quality?
On record that Corbyn has bullied his backbenchers into voting the way he instructs when his record as a backbencher voting against the whip is totally unbelievable. Screams hypocrisy to me.
His Home Secretary should he win will be Diane Abbott and chancellor John McDonnell. Both of whom are poor choices in my opinion. As for conservative front bench they are not any better.
With you all the way on Abbott but McDonnell seems at least OK.
McDonnell might look like someone's favourite uncle but he is an outright Trot. What's worse is that he now won't admit or let on exactly just how extreme his views are.
I am a bit pissed so will no doubt regret this later but I like Lev Bronstein. Who else has been in a Stranglers song, got killed with an ice pick and had an affair with Frida Kahlo. We need mor of that kind of colour in British politics.
Yeah, probably not the best idea to out yourself as a Communist, even if no longer Revolutionary .
35 years ago I was also slim, had hair and didn't need glasses.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
This is *absolute* nonsense of course, unless you think half of Labour's MPs are Diane Abbott
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
This is *absolute* nonsense of course, unless you think half of Labour's MPs are Diane Abbott
Given this election the media have done nothing but provide 24/7 coverage of Diane Abbott, most people probably think this is the case.
Some of the bias on here is quite funny, Jeremy Corbyn's interview last night being described as assured?? He was terrible, he drowned in my opinion, he got blown away by the member of the public asking about the IRA, he couldn't answer the business owners question and concern properly just ranted on about poor people (again targeting the most vulnerable), then Paxman mauled him, although him cutting through him bugged me, he has to let people speak.
May was equally as shite and wobbly and it just goes to show how much of a farce this whole election is
Absolutely no bias in your post though.
How can there be when I don't like either of them and think they're both pathetic excuses for leaders? i didn't need to delve into May's performance as everyone else has done so whilst creaming over Corbyns abysmal efforts, we should be demanding more from our PM and the leader of the opposition
I think May has come across as average at best. I think Corbyn has done rather better.
If Labour didn't have Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott at the helm, I might vote Labour.
However, I cannot ignore their past views, which to be fair, appeared to be less than fully pro British, even if they now say they no longer hold those views.
Both the main party 'leaders' are pathetic excuses for leaders. One fell into the role as their boss jumped ship, the other has had to fight his own MP's time and time again to keep his role.
The main problem with our dismal cast of politicians appears to be that most of them have progressed to their position through membership of an increasingly partisan and aggressive party system, where self-interest trumps national interest or introspection at almost every turn. These are people who for the most part are only concerned with their own wealth and power, and are exposed when called upon to do right by the people. Individuals with integrity and open minds will not be coaxed out with higher pay - quite the opposite - in fact I'd bring MP pay down to the national average. The most suitable politicians aren't put off by the pay, they're put off by the quasi-Masonic party structures and the need to curry favour to get anywhere. Running as an independent is a non-starter. Running for anyone except the main two or three parties is a non-starter. And getting into those parties means playing a dismal and petty game that most people with any sense would avoid. I would love to be in a position to change things myself, but I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate my way through even Labour's back-alleys and secret crypts. Perhaps the party is changing now, but my Green membership history is probably enough to rule me out for good. And I'm sure other principled people are in similar situations.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
This is *absolute* nonsense of course, unless you think half of Labour's MPs are Diane Abbott
Given this election the media have done nothing but provide 24/7 coverage of Diane Abbott, most people probably think this is the case.
You have to admit Fiiish, she does set herself up to be shot at.
The main problem with our dismal cast of politicians appears to be that most of them have progressed to their position through membership of an increasingly partisan and aggressive party system, where self-interest trumps national interest or introspection at almost every turn. These are people who for the most part are only concerned with their own wealth and power, and are exposed when called upon to do right by the people. Individuals with integrity and open minds will not be coaxed out with higher pay - quite the opposite - in fact I'd bring MP pay down to the national average. The most suitable politicians aren't put off by the pay, they're put off by the quasi-Masonic party structures and the need to curry favour to get anywhere. Running as an independent is a non-starter. Running for anyone except the main two or three parties is a non-starter. And getting into those parties means playing a dismal and petty game that most people with any sense would avoid. I would love to be in a position to change things myself, but I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate my way through even Labour's back-alleys and secret crypts. Perhaps the party is changing now, but my Green membership history is probably enough to rule me out for good. And I'm sure other principled people are in similar situations.
While it might be an interesting idea to limit the pay, you would then have to increase the allowances and support provided for MPs (one of the reasons that MPs' salaries have been increasing so much of late is due to a reduction in the amounts they can claim).
You'd also have to provide those from outside of the metropolis with accomodation (I've always been quite enamoured of the idea of a House Of Commons Hall of Residence), to say nothing of paying in full for the ancillary services that they use (again, perhaps the State should provide constituency offices, rather than allow MPs select their own).
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
This is *absolute* nonsense of course, unless you think half of Labour's MPs are Diane Abbott
Given this election the media have done nothing but provide 24/7 coverage of Diane Abbott, most people probably think this is the case.
You have to admit Fiiish, she does set herself up to be shot at.
I think we are seeing the case being made for elected MPs to have their pay significantly increased. Thirty odd years ago politics still attracted the very best intellects. The cabinet and shadow cabinet members were people who would have been highly successful in whatever career they might have chosen. Since the remuneration for MPs has fallen further and further behind the quality in terms of intellect and articulateness of new MPs has been declining rapidly. The result is that we have a cabinet and shadow cabinet, including the leaders, filled with second and third rate minds.
I think the determination to be politically correct and impose diversity and equality quotas rather than select the genuinely best candidate irrespective of ethnicity, gender or creed has played a part in lowering standards.
Yet the majority of the most stupid ones are still white men. (Please note, I wrote "the majority").
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Well I seem to have confused you, and I always believe that if that happens it's my fault, so I'll try and clear things up.
Hatton, as your own post illustrated described, is the kind of dangerous hard-left person that used the Labour Party to gain power in the 80s. And by the way, it looks like you should try to watch Alan Bleasdale's GBH. It remains one of my favourite BBC dramas ever, and was clearly about Hatton in Liverpool although that was never overtly stated. Robert Lindsey as the Hatton character gives one of the finest sustained acting portrayals I have ever seen. Watch it, for pleasure.
Neil Kinnock is not hard left, I agree. I voted for him, twice. He knew that he would never get anywhere unless he cut out the cancer of the hard left from Labour membership. I have found the speech at the Labour conference it was actually 1985. One of the most thrilling, tension -filled political speeches of my adult lifetime. As I tried to explain, had Kinnock not made that speech, and started the process of cutting Militant out of Labour, 1997 would never have happened. Take a look.
I believe that
1. Corbyn did not support Kinnock's speech (although i cannot, right now provide evidence of that). Nor, I believe did Abbott or McDonnell.
2. For "Militant" read "Momentum"
However all that said, I will be voting Labour for the first time in 25 years on June 9. And while I am doing that despite Corbyn, I though he was decent last night and I feel better about my choice with every passing day.
Loved GBH Prague and knew it represented Hatton but such people grow to mirror the poisonous shit such as Thatcher. Never voted Kinnock or Blair, obvious they were charlatans. Can't be arsed to follow link to Neil, now on the gravy train. Glad you are doing the right thing on 8th June.
Sorry to come on the wrong side of the best poster on CL.
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Who will benefit from the 10% tariffs? The EU economy.
Who will benefit from a 7% increase in corporation tax? The UK economy.
The increase in corporation tax will help fund government investment in education, training, NHS and transport infrastructure to name just a few things. Government investment in big ticket items like these leads to increased GDP in the longer term, increased consumer demand and bigger profits for UK companies.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
Dippenhall and Greenie please advise something positive from seven years of Tory rule. May called the election on Brexit issues but she won't say wether my German friend Heidi will have to return home, will CAP grants to farmers be maintained, employment laws protected, fishing rights changed and a thousand other issues. Uncosted vague promises. She is winging it.
Kept us out of seven years of being run by the likes of Corbyn and Diane Abbott.
Comments
personally I thought that effect might kick in during summer 2017, so to see it already now is a bit of a shock. You'd think the HM Opposition might seize on these figures in the election debate, but oh, no, we can't be seen to criticise the consequences of "the will of the people", can we?
This is the clear danger of the anti-expert, anti-fact propaganda of the last few years. We'll drive off a cliff and nobody who could stop us will be listened to or believed, whilst others will stay quite as they'd rather be the driver of a doomed bus than a passenger on another.
If Labour didn't have Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott at the helm, I might vote Labour.
However, I cannot ignore their past views, which to be fair, appeared to be less than fully pro British, even if they now say they no longer hold those views.
Both the main party 'leaders' are pathetic excuses for leaders. One fell into the role as their boss jumped ship, the other has had to fight his own MP's time and time again to keep his role.
You'd also have to provide those from outside of the metropolis with accomodation (I've always been quite enamoured of the idea of a House Of Commons Hall of Residence), to say nothing of paying in full for the ancillary services that they use (again, perhaps the State should provide constituency offices, rather than allow MPs select their own).
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Sorry to come on the wrong side of the best poster on CL.
Who will benefit from a 7% increase in corporation tax? The UK economy.
The increase in corporation tax will help fund government investment in education, training, NHS and transport infrastructure to name just a few things. Government investment in big ticket items like these leads to increased GDP in the longer term, increased consumer demand and bigger profits for UK companies.