Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gilps

  1. Government owned properties will all be public knowledge. We’ve had an MP murdered in recent years, credible threats made against others. I’m not sure why where they sleep has to be public knowledge or what the gain is, as long as expensesvon private places are controlled.
  2. Security and other risk issues with putting everyone in one place. You’d not let half your MPs get on the same plane together in case of a crash. You don’t want a fire taking out the building where half of them are living. The worst of those expenses claims have mostly been eliminated with changes to the system since the big scandal. A lot of expenses are effectively centrally controlled now e.g. IT equipment used in constituency offices has to be sourced through Parliament and must be returned when you lose or otherwise leave your seat.
  3. Indeed. Cabinet members are on around £150k. Junior ministers between £105 and £125k depending on level. Select Committee Chairs about £100k. Leader of the Opposition £140k. They all still need a home in London (or commutable distance) for when they’re in Westminster. That’s true for all MPs, wherever their seat. The ones not in commutable distance need a home in their constituency too. London MPs need 1 home, at London prices. Northern MPs need a London home at those prices plus a constituency home.
  4. It’s a factor that’s reduced if you’re already a local, obviously. And in general local candidates should be preferable. But a general election campaign is still enough work that you’re giving up the day job for a period to do it and lots of potentially great candidates just can’t do that. This is a different issue though and not sure increasing pay for anyone who gets the job at the end of the process solves it.
  5. I just think it’s better to have all that covered by a separate, robust and transparent expenses system. But agree it’s not worth getting hung up on that premise really.
  6. There are other financial barriers to entry though. If you want to run - especially as a candidate for a major party in a competitive seat - then you’ve got to move there and work pretty much full time, giving up or taking a sabbatical from a day job , for at least a few months in advance of the election.
  7. You’re still saying that MPs for London seats should have more money after expenses than MPs for seats in the North, the West Country, Scotland, wherever else. That’s inherently unfair and arguably says To those communities that their representatives are worth less than Londoners representatives are.
  8. Not going near that figure, but a flat rate of expenses, whether included in the salary or separate, is not a remotely fair proposition. The costs of accommodation and travel for an MP whose constituency isn’t in London (or somewhere a very close commute to it) are always going to be substantially higher than they are for an MP who only needs to live in one place.
  9. Absolutely. But your proposal to defer earnings until after the stop being MPs doesn’t address the time spent writing while they were an MP. If that’s a problem, you have to ban them writing altogether while they were MPs.
  10. But this comes back to the core point - is your objection to them earning more money from other sources or taking time that distracts them from the job?
  11. Where would you live? How would you commute from Birmingham? Sounds like a recipe for making the job the preserve of the independently wealthy.
  12. I do think it’s very hard to draw the line with writing. Columns are one thing, but what about books? We could likely all agree that they shouldn’t be dashing off novels of an evening. But what about books on political theory or internal party matters like Benn wrote a few of? What about other non fiction like history or biography? Where do you draw that line, or do you just ban all book writing of any nature?
  13. Well this is it. I’ve just been trying to ascertain whether there was consistency to the position here. Mostly cause I’m bored at home this morning. If there isn’t, it’s fine. It’s absolutely OK to just think Javid and JP Morgan are c****. I know I do.
  14. I don’t imagine any MP (or councillor for that matter) saw their workload reduce during lockdown. The ones I know were all swamped by increased levels of casework from struggling constituents.
  15. I don’t think they should be paid more to recompense a removal of second jobs, I think they should be paid more anyway. I think the role is underpaid given the level of responsibility involved. Whittome also returned to doing care work on top of her MP’s role during the early stages of the coronavirus crisis, and was widely praised for doing so. You think she shouldn’t have done this I assume?
  16. I don’t necessarily disagree although as KAMF says you’d have to increase pay. Think there’s a case for that regardless. Writing is particularly tricky. Politicians of course use columns as a way of communicating their ideas to the public. Is an occasional one OK? How about a regular weekly column, like the one a certain recent Labour leader had for years? Would they be OK if they were unpaid? If so, surely that means your objection is to the money and not the time and focus it’s taking away from the job. Are such writings and communications part of the job anyway?
  17. Assume that’s a typo. He has worked with 1828, a very minor student led hard Brexit blog. Think tank would be a generous term. In any case, as you say, important thing is that the PHE replacement is absolutely not going to be a private company. There’s plenty of reasons to be concerned about them replacing it but that isn’t one of them Is it the specific role that concerns you, or do think there should be a blanket ban on second jobs? Not saying that’s not an idea without merit, but it would prevent for example some MPs still doing work in the NHS or the care sector. Would also be d
  18. The government is scrapping Section 106 agreements and it will be devastating for the future of social housing in this country. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/concerns-for-social-rent-as-government-unveils-plans-to-scrap-section-106-67418 A whole host of restrictions imposed by government prevent local authorities building council housing on anything approaching the scale required, even when they have the ability and desire to do so. Of the limited amount being built, half is directly down the funds from Section 106 and that is now being taken away and replaced by schemes
  19. Gilps


    Johnson offered the opportunity at the press conference to distance himself from Whittaker’s comments and he declines to take it.
  20. Gilps


    Yeah, local lockdowns are slways going to be hugely divisive. People wi of course question where the boundariesare drawn. Imagine how bad it will be when a whole town is locked down over a spike in specific estate.
  21. If celebs all stayed out of politics, there might well be 1,000s of kids going hungry this summer. Plenty of famous people use their platforms to bring attention to all sorts of issues. This is a good thing.
  22. I agree that it’s worth picking at an area of weakness for the government, even if in the grand scheme of things the issue is overblown. Especially if it is an issue that is a perceived area of strength for the Tories relative to Labour, as national security probably is traditionally.
  23. Well can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t mention it cause it was my day off following a stretch of working 45 hours in 4 days and I was in the pub. I never really anticipated it having as big an impact as loads were expecting or hoping for either though.
  • Create New...