Eric Pickles on Question Time last night

[skoff]

Did anybody else see it? Great car-crash TV.

He was trying to defend his supposed need to have a flat in central London paid for out of the MPs allowance when his own home is 37 miles from Westminster.

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

I really think the MPs need to get this sorted out - they should be able to stand in the light of any public scrutiny, I mean they are our employees after all.

Oh and Michael Winner was also highly amusing on the show last night, very un-PC. If you didn't see it last night get on the iPlayer and watch it, best one for ages.

[skoff]

Martial Arts Man said:

Last week was better.

You mean Fern Briton saying that women wouldn't have allowed the banking crisis because they were traditionally good at looking after housekeeping? That really was a great moment in the show's history.

I don't normally agree with them bringing on these random celebrities to talk nonsense about stuff they don't understand, but there have been a few classics recently.

[skoff]

esselte said:

Eric was pretty cringeworthy wasn't he?Especially whenhe said he had to be at the House for a specific time each day and Dimbleby said " Oh,just like having a job then Eric?" Made me smile...

Yes you have to hand it to David, a perfect dig.

So do the PH collective think that MPs have lost touch with reality? If so, then how do we change it? Or do we want to change it at all?

I think we should start with getting rid of these allowances and putting up their wages a bit.

[skoff]

esselte said:

skoff said:

esselte said:

Eric was pretty cringeworthy wasn't he?Especially whenhe said he had to be at the House for a specific time each day and Dimbleby said " Oh,just like having a job then Eric?" Made me smile...

Yes you have to hand it to David, a perfect dig.

So do the PH collective think that MPs have lost touch with reality? If so, then how do we change it? Or do we want to change it at all?

I think we should start with getting rid of these allowances and putting up their wages a bit.

Why would the London MP's (the ones who have a constituency and also live there) need any extra at all...?

I don't think the extra salary should be instead of the allowance, they should have to make their own arrangements from the salary they are paid, just like everybody else. If they want to stay in a YMCA rather than a nice flat with a nice postcode then that's up to them. My office is 1hr10mins away from my home, but I don't choose to move, nor do I get a subsidy from my employer to travel to work - my choice is put up with it, move, or work somewhere else - it should be the same for MPs.

The extra money I think should be to tempt more high flyer execs into the job to increase the general level of ability in the House of Commons.

[skoff]

Fittster said:

skoff said:

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes.

How much do you think the salary should be to attract real talent?

It should be on a par with company directors of medium to large sized companies. Basically enough to attract those types of people who run successful businesses.

I think currently they earn about £64K, which isn't that much when you consider the average London salary is £48K. I think £150k should be a starting point, with ministers starting at £200k. My figures might be out of date, but you see my point.

I know this might be an unpopular thing, but look at how much responsibility these guys have - I want a safe pair of hands making decisions that affect the whole country.

[skoff]

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

Well I would then argue that they shouldn't be working those sorts of hours. How can they be expected to be on the ball if they are working too many hours? the working directives are there for a reason. Take doctors as an example, they have successfully, on the whole, managed to reduce the number of hours they work these days...

I have a completely non-important job in IT, but I have had to do some long hours in the past with a long commute (2 hours in and out of London), and I didn't get subsidised. I could have stopped in a hotel at my expense, but I chose not to - MPs should have the same choice, but at their own expense.

[skoff]

sa_20v said:

Pathetic - but they're pathetic people so what can we expect? I don't know why we put up with them to be honest, I suppose most of us believe as they've been elected they actually have a clue...

Which is exactly why the job should pay more, so we get less pathetic people that want to do a good job.

I get annoyed when I hear politicians saying they don't go into the job for the money - utter nonsense, everybody needs to pay the bills, they wouldn't do it for free, so they do it for the money, ultimately. Let's increase their salaries so there is more competition for the top jobs...

[skoff]

Parrot of Doom said:

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

That's a very poor comparison. If your CEO told you that your job would in future entail working on two sites, 37 miles apart across London, with no change in conditions or salary, but longer hours - would you still work for him?

But MPs working conditions have improved in recent times, with fewer hours, plus I don't think attendance is required except by the party whips... Of course they need to answer to their constituents, but that's the nature of the beast, and rightly so.

[skoff]

crankedup said:

You have to pay huge amounts of money to attract top talent!! utter piffle. The same old clap trap bankers used to use to line thier pockets. If people want to work in politics then do the same as the general population of this Country, decide, look at salary structure, if you still feel you have the burning desire go for it. We need to get away from this 'top people, top money' nonsense and return to some ethics and honesty again.

Point taken about the bankers, but that was more down to poor recruitment of people for the job with no qualifications or relevant experience.

I don't see how talent can be attracted any other way than with good salary. In a utopian society then yes we would have honest selfless people running the country, but the trouble is there are many many commercial organisations only too happy to pay big £££s to get successful people on board with a proven track record - how do you compete with that other than with comparable salaries?

[skoff]

ipitythefool said:

skoff said:

[I don't see how talent can be attracted any other way than with good salary.

Define talent.

Why can't a nurse become an MP? Why do you have to attract lawyers, bankers and successful businesspeople?

Again point taken, but I am not sure that a nurse has the appropriate skills for making decisions about things like economic policy, foreign policy, defence, etc... I think there is a very good case for having a nurse being responsible for the NHS, as long as they were able to manage the budget effectively. I still think the salary would have to be good to get somebody competent and willing to take the responsibility. A random person from a random 'normal' job would probably run a mile if offered a job as an MP.

[skoff]

Shay HTFC said:

I wonder what the page count would be at if this were a Labour MP we were talking about.

Pistonheads is so Tory

Well the same arguments apply, only more-so, to Tony McNulty. His '2nd house' was only saving him a commute of 9 miles. It seems he was perfectly within the rules, but that's hardly the point, and he gets paid his Minister salary too.

[skoff]

crankedup said:

skoff said:

crankedup said:

You have to pay huge amounts of money to attract top talent!! utter piffle. The same old clap trap bankers used to use to line thier pockets. If people want to work in politics then do the same as the general population of this Country, decide, look at salary structure, if you still feel you have the burning desire go for it. We need to get away from this 'top people, top money' nonsense and return to some ethics and honesty again.

Point taken about the bankers, but that was more down to poor recruitment of people for the job with no qualifications or relevant experience.

I don't see how talent can be attracted any other way than with good salary. In a utopian society then yes we would have honest selfless people running the country, but the trouble is there are many many commercial organisations only too happy to pay big £££s to get successful people on board with a proven track record - how do you compete with that other than with comparable salaries?

But I see the counter to my argument as 'old money', do we not have to wake up and realize that the big money is no longer going to be out there. Well OK, some top private Companies might still survive on 'old money' thinking but in truth those days are gone. Don't get me wrong here, people who have brushes in thier tool cabinet will still be paid less than somebody with an leather attache case with tools of the desk in it, I just feel that the difference will be significantly reduced over the next decade.

Ah ok I think I see where you are coming from now. I too think that the big wages currently being paid are too high, and I think that company survival will force them down... I just think that MPs wages should be comparable to the equivalent private sector top dogs. If nothing else to increase the competition for those people wanting to take up public office.

[skoff]

crankedup said:

skoff said:

ipitythefool said:

skoff said:

[I don't see how talent can be attracted any other way than with good salary.

Define talent.

Why can't a nurse become an MP? Why do you have to attract lawyers, bankers and successful businesspeople?

Again point taken, but I am not sure that a nurse has the appropriate skills for making decisions about things like economic policy, foreign policy, defence, etc... I think there is a very good case for having a nurse being responsible for the NHS, as long as they were able to manage the budget effectively. I still think the salary would have to be good to get somebody competent and willing to take the responsibility. A random person from a random 'normal' job would probably run a mile if offered a job as an MP.

Run a mile if offered a job as an MP! We all know thats not how it works don't we. Most 'working' MP's start off the career at local level, hopefully learning thier stock in trade and, like most 'normal' jobs start to climb the greasy pole of promotion. The difference is of course the politician needs to be elected. Note the number of MP's who have ran the guantlet by starting off as an union shop steward.

True enough, but it doesn't make it right... We are currently getting experienced MPs - but the experience they have is experience as a politician and, as you say, getting voted in. Maybe that's the part of the system that doesn't work? The old adage about those that most want to lead should be the ones that under no circumstances be allowed to... But that's a different thread.

The question you answered is 'why can't a nurse become and MP' - well that's because she needs to have played the political game to get elected. It's a corrupt system, but I still think we need to up the rewards to increase the competition for the top jobs.