Jackqui Smith Down

**** off you lot this was my subject matter.

Anyway, no it really isn't the right salary. 150k is about right for the
job, 200 if you make the Cabinet and the PM 500. That stand up well in the
outside world.

But it *really* has to be tied to a limited number of terms for serving
MP's. And at Constituency level there should be an absolute bar on family
and extended family members standing in replacement elections.

 

Helloo! you shouldn't be standing for Parliament because you think it's a
good job or for the money. It is public service. I don't think MP's should
work for nothing but anyone standing as an MP should be motivated enough
that they would if they had to.

 

Surely, in the context of Semtex, "Boum!" would be more appropriate.

 

Here is your sort of girl
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsA_Xko4tqM

Simplistically stereotyping their supporters is pretty dumb too. Their rise
is a reflection of the complete disconnect of the social policies developed
by Parliamentary Democracy over 40 years and the beliefs and wishes of the
majority general population.

 

So you pay nothing towards the education budget, Mrs-sptktj pays (number
of kids/cost)*3 ?

Call plod or the fire brigade, they send you a bill? Road pricing for all
roads?

But why? Surely that's unfair.

Consistency.

 

I'll say again, if you think it'd a job you shouldn't be standing.

 

I'd say it's a 24 x 365 job

That's right, cos what we really want is rich people dabbling in
politics for fun.

 

What about poor people doing it through a sense of wanting to improve
things?

 

<Samsung Billy>
Yeah! yeah! Ban the avaricious middle classes from politics.
</Samsung Billy>


I think just paying politicians more is a mistake.
But. If we are going to have pay the fuckers more, I
want effective performance appraisals[1] and a much
greater right to sack/prosecute the bastards when they
forget why they are there in the first place.

[1] Over and above just voting once every blue moon. A proper
independent yearly examination of what an individual has done
and acheived. Voting record, comittee work, constuency work,
expenses, attendance records, the lot. Made avalable online.

 

it's a big horse?

 

heh - of course - that's a few tracks later on the disc[1] but "La
Mer" is definitely A.'s fav.

[1] http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000KB6CVK/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

 

Are you trolling?

It's got **** all to do with money. You need people who care about issues
and want to create change and improvement.

 

Ha! Coming from you, that's funny.

Sure, but as Simes has pointed out, it needs to pay well enough

 

I'd have thought that 2.6x the national average full time salary was
hardly starvation rations.

 

it's considerably less than what I get paid, and I work considerably
less than an MP.

 

I'm very happy for you.

 

They're pay the same for any other service, so why not ones a council
provides?

I'm with WUN on this one, but I'm still LibDem as a the pros outweigh
the cons.

 

Because you can't decide *not* to take the services. For something
that you have no choice in (and therefore can't economise on), it's
unfair to charge the same flat rate to everyone.

 

In that case, let's have a local taxation policy where everyone pays,
and pays the same as everyone else regardless of their ability to pay.

Let's call it, say, the Poll Tax, shall we?

 

I'm just backing up the point that £60K for a high-profile, high-
responsibility job with everything you do under public scrutiny[1]
job, which for many involves a lot of time spent away from home, and
also working at weekends, isn't a lot of money.

And although I get paid more than that figure, I get paid relatively
poorly[2] for people at my level working in financial services in The
City.

[1] the newspapers aren't going to give a shit who I'm fucking, for
example.
[2] because I work in IS, not in Front Office