Owen Paterson: Anger as Tory MP avoids suspension in rule shake-up

Originally Posted by Paul

Either you are really clueless, or just trolling for a reaction.

Plenty of people need a second job in order to earn reasonable money, and not rely on handouts.

Just becasue the UK average is £30K does not mean everyone gets it.

I think that's his point no? That people shouldn't need a second job and that some people do is a failure of our economy.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Either you are really clueless, or just trolling for a reaction.

Plenty of people need a second job in order to earn reasonable money, and not rely on handouts.

Just becasue the UK average is £30K does not mean everyone gets it.

I don't think it clueless or trolling for this country to aspire to it's citizens earning a wage for a full time job that they can actually live on without working themselves to death doing extra elsewhere, 30 years ago most CEOs pay was 40x its lowest paid member of staff now it's hundreds of times that, we've got money for them but not for everyone else

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that's his point no? That people shouldn't need a second job and that some people do is a failure of our economy.

No, thats not my interpretation, but even if it were, such a 'utopia' isnt possible.

Yes, I'm sure it would be nice if every person who wanted a full time job that paid well could just go out and get one, but thats just wisful thinking.
So yes, some people will always need more than one job (often 2+ part time jobs).

On the other hand, some people definite dont require them, and I would class MPs as people who dont need second jobs.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't think it clueless .....

I do. Its living in a fantasy world.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that's his point no? That people shouldn't need a second job and that some people do is a failure of our economy.

Oooh. That simplification cannot be right. I've done it in the past to save up for a far-away holiday. Nothing to do with the economy.

The implication of what you've said is that the economy needs to be level so that nobody needs two jobs. That's impossible owing to human nature.

[Pierre]

It’s a failure that being a member of Parliament is not considered worthy enough of being a full time job.

Let’s face it the quality of MPs is extremely variable. If Angela Rayner qualifies, then anyone qualifies.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a minimum criteria for what is required for a person to stand as an MP, and have prospective candidates assessed before an independent panel before they are allowed to stand for election.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s a failure that being a member of Parliament is not considered worthy enough of being a full time job.

Let’s face it the quality of MPs is extremely variable. If Angela Rayner qualifies, then anyone qualifies.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a minimum criteria for what is required for a person to stand as an MP, and have prospective candidates assessed before an independent panel before they are allowed to stand for election.

That's the thing that always makes me laugh, "we need to be paid more to attract the best people", that must mean we're making do with less than the best now then and don't it show

[Sephiroth]

Pierre, human psychology defeats the ideals that you have put forward.

Those who want to be MPs, whether Labour or Conservative or any other party for that matter, are interested in their slice of power and their effect on society and the country. But many are also highly qualified and naturally want to tap in to their non-political skills.

If there are to be rules, then, I suggest, they can only be tied to their parliamentary performance. For example, if an MP is not present in the chamber on 3 sitting days per week (unless absent on parliamentary business) then their constituency will have the opportunity for a recall petition each anniversary of election. Something like that.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a minimum criteria for what is required for a person to stand as an MP, and have prospective candidates assessed before an independent panel before they are allowed to stand for election.

Yes I agree. If I’m certain of anything decision making by the average Brit isn’t worthy of representation at the ballot box.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's the thing that always makes me laugh, "we need to be paid more to attract the best people", that must mean we're making do with less than the best now then and don't it show

Thank God we don’t need the best nurses eh?

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that's his point no? That people shouldn't need a second job and that some people do is a failure of our economy.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Oooh. That simplification cannot be right. I've done it in the past to save up for a far-away holiday. Nothing to do with the economy.

The implication of what you've said is that the economy needs to be level so that nobody needs two jobs. That's impossible owing to human nature.

This would go off topic but whilst it is a bit simplistic it's not totally unreachable. We as a society continue to produce more and more wealth so having people who work full time (a couple of part-time jobs I accept isn't the same) should have enough to have a decent standard of living.

Part of the problem is not just low-paying, insecure, work but the cost of housing as well though which is growing faster than average wage growth causing more and more of someone's income to taken up by it year on year.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a minimum criteria for what is required for a person to stand as an MP, and have prospective candidates assessed before an independent panel before they are allowed to stand for election.

You can't have an unelected, 'independent' panel, sanction who can stand for Parliament. It would completely subvert our democracy.

Although the nature of Parliament means it would in the end be accountable to Parliament the fact the panel gets to select who can stand for it would give huge power to that panel.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Damien

You can't have an unelected, 'independent' panel, sanction who can stand for Parliament. It would completely subvert our democracy.

Although the nature of Parliament means it would in the end be accountable to Parliament the fact the panel gets to select who can stand for it would give huge power to that panel.

Absolutely, the nice thing in the UK is that nearly anyone can stand and nearly anyone could win.


Voters need to pay better attention to those standing and not just vote on party lines (or tactically). If each constituency sent a "good" MP maybe the overall standard would go up.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Absolutely, the nice thing in the UK is that nearly anyone can stand and nearly anyone could win.


Voters need to pay better attention to those standing and not just vote on party lines (or tactically). If each constituency sent a "good" MP maybe the overall standard would go up.

Unfortunately, not true (for the Major parties).

First you have to get selected to get on the (Party) Candidates List, then you have to be short-listed (and approved by Central Office and the Constituency), then you have to be selected by the Constituency, then, and only then, do the voters get a choice.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Thank God we don’t need the best nurses eh?

Seems like we don't need the best of anything, except MPs

In other news a former tory advisor who is married to a sitting Conservative MP is is going to help choose the next chairman of ofcom and bozo has the brass neck to go on live TV and announce to the world that we are not a corrupt country, well the country might not be but the government certainly is

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

You can't have an unelected, 'independent' panel, sanction who can stand for Parliament. It would completely subvert our democracy.

Doesn't seem to worry the second chamber?

Although the nature of Parliament means it would in the end be accountable to Parliament the fact the panel gets to select who can stand for it would give huge power to that panel.

OK, in absence of a "panel" a set of basic rules.

i.e.

Minimum Age.
Must have worked for at least 10 years in a non-governmental role.
Must either live or have lived in the constituency they represent of a minimum period.
Definitely no second jobs.

just anything to improve the status quo.

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Absolutely, the nice thing in the UK is that nearly anyone can stand

Yes

and nearly anyone could win.

not so much.