All in this together?

[crankedup]

Should Senior Members of the Government be showing conspicuous restraint in their private lifestyles, as requested by the P.M. Or is it unreasonable to expect such restrained behaviour by individuals regardless of their public position.?

[crankedup]

Notice I used the word conspicuous in my opening. With Cameron anxious about the image of the Conservatives (publicly) I would think a few Senior Members may have a few choice words whispered in their lugholes. Can't blame these people for enjoying their wealth but it irks somewhat. See what 'The Guardian' has to say.

[crankedup]

voyds9 said:

There's me thinking spending will get us out of the recession. Must be wrong. Hang on everyone no more spending that will get the economy moving.

Would be slightly more palatable if the 'guilty' spent their money in this Country rather than taken it abroad perhaps.

[crankedup]

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

The very mention of the dirty words 'Bankers Bonus'

[crankedup]

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

But pay levels ARE massively down from the pre-crisis years, and the people responsible for the damage are long gone.

You seem to be urging banks to underpay the remaining productive staff, to make some kind of point. If, for example, Barclays paid zero this year, do you not think that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot?

Its time that shareholders, especially the large Corporate holders of pension funds and the like, took a far more proactive roll in calling the shots when it comes to bonus payments and salary. For to long its all been very cosy and comforting for the top end Managers of the large Institutions to ride the wave. Now the wave has broken on the beach lets see some action for VFM.

[crankedup]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

[crankedup]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

crankedup said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

David Chaytor might disagree with your assertion that there was no scrutiny of MPs' expenses, or risk of prosecution.

In other words there's very little difference.

Yes of course, fair point. My direction was more pre 2007 before the expenses scandal was revealed to the public. Being an M.P. then must have been very cosy indeed and this is the era to which I refer. Incidentally, the 3 former M.P'S + one Lord are up before the beak soon I believe?

[crankedup]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

crankedup said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

crankedup said:

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

David Chaytor might disagree with your assertion that there was no scrutiny of MPs' expenses, or risk of prosecution.

In other words there's very little difference.

Yes of course, fair point. My direction was more pre 2007 before the expenses scandal was revealed to the public. Being an M.P. then must have been very cosy indeed and this is the era to which I refer. Incidentally, the 3 former M.P'S + one Lord are up before the beak soon I believe?

The fundamental problem with MPs is that they didn't, and don't, pay themselves enough money for the job that they do. In part that is responsible for the generally woeful quality of those standing for, and being elected to, parliament. A backbencher currently gets £65,000 a year. Anyone worth their salt is likely to be able to earn significantly more than that elsewhere - including elsewhere in the public sector if the desire is "to serve". An MPs salary used to be formally linked to Civil Service pay. This link was changed in 1971 with the formation of the Senior Salaries Review Body. The key problem here was that they would make recommendations which MPs would then decide whether to adopt or not. MPs quickly realised that to be seen to be voting themselves pay rises would be political dynamite. So they didn't.

Expenses, wrongly, therefore became the means by which salary would be "topped up" after the formal link to civil service grading was dropped. It then became far easier politically to operate a lax and overly generous expenses policy, as this passed under the radar until the lid was lifted by the Telegraph following that tremendous piece of Blair legislation The Freedom of Information Act. So we ended up in an unacceptable cu-de-sac of (relatively) little pay, and lots of expenses - albeit of parliament's own making.

Parliament's response to this is to reform the expenses policy to make it more transparent etc etc. The fundamental issue though remains unresolved. What it requires is a clear assessment of what level MPs pay should be, and for those recommendations to be implemented without MPs having any say in it. This would probably result in a significant increase to MPs salaries and, IMHO, rightly so. A cabinet minister usually runs a department of thousands and thousands of people, with a budget measured in the billions of pounds. And they are paid about £130,000 a year. There is no other job in this country that carries anything like the power, influence, and responsibility (is there one?) and pays anything like this little. If we really want better government we need to attract better quality people. Pay is one element of this, but one which MPs are probably too short-sighted to resolve (again).

Edited by Rocksteadyeddie on Monday 3rd January 16:19

Completely agree 100%. But it will not exonerate those that have allegedly taken money from the public purse fraudulently. But again I do agree with your post in its entirety.