RANT CORNER

[jamesedwards]

But these private companies are like wolves and the govt is either incompetent at negotiating contracts or, worse still, complicit in signing off unworkable deals.

I blame the regulator primarily... Then the government for creating an environment in which this mess could happen.

The private companies have a responsibility to maximise returns for shareholders & it was the regulators job to recognise this and balance that with customer / national interest. Especially in light of the fact these companies run local monopolies and so face no competition / pressures to make themselves more efficient / provide good value to customers.

I'd also argue against James's point in this case (that private companies are more efficient) as we have a direct comparison with the still nationalised Scottish Water & the fiasco down south... Just one of example of which is the chief exec gets paid a tiny fraction of the massive renumeration packages of his peers in England.

The general public obsession with CEO salaries and bonuses is weird. Their remuneration, no matter how fat, is of miniscule bearing to the overall efficiency and profitability of a large organisation. Clearly the board believe the return is of value or the package would never get sanctioned.

Thames Water CEO is on a pay package worth up to £2.3m per year (of which a significant proportion will be lost to tax). He is directly responsible for managing revenues of £2.2b per year, so he just needs to impact the business positively by 0.1% to pay for himself.

[jamesedwards]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

[sionascaig]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

And you indeed make some good points....

My view is tainted by a chief exec of a company I worked for, after being awarded by the board a "full" final salary pension on taking up the role, immediately cut the value of the staff pension scheme by 40% for everyone else.

The 1st thing he did on getting that change through was buy himself a new Ferrari.

So you are right he saved the company a fortune !

.

[sniffer66]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

I've always said this. When you are on £15k a year and struggling the (current) £91k for an MP may seem a lot, but in private company terms I've worked with many middle to high tier I.T guys who are on way over that. But, that wage is standard middle manager level in a lot of companies and is, really, peanuts considering what they are responsible for.

Likewise, the arguments about MP expenses. if you incur legitimate expenses in the course of your work you expect to be reimbursed for meals, travel and accommodation etc. It never comes out of your own pocket. Those who abuse that, is another matter, obviously

And the above is why we get MP's whose primary income is from other sources, not necessarily the best people for the job

[greenmark]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

I disagree. Being an MP is the peak of vocational employment. They have other opportunities to earn. To pay them more would just be a bonus for them.
The last few years have demonstrated that some MP's and PM's should have never been allowed near positions of power.
Contrast Biden with BJ , Truss, Trump and Sunak. The latter are only interested in themselves. Biden is a career politician.
I honestly believe the concept of public service is natural for him and utterly alien to the others.

[jamesedwards]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

And you indeed make some good points....

My view is tainted by a chief exec of a company I worked for, after being awarded by the board a "full" final salary pension on taking up the role, immediately cut the value of the staff pension scheme by 40% for everyone else.

The 1st thing he did on getting that change through was buy himself a new Ferrari.

So you are right he saved the company a fortune !

.

I didn't say that CEOs weren't bastards!

[Michael5482]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

I disagree. Being an MP is the peak of vocational employment. They have other opportunities to earn. To pay them more would just be a bonus for them.
The last few years have demonstrated that some MP's and PM's should have never been allowed near positions of power.
Contrast Biden with BJ , Truss, Trump and Sunak. The latter are only interested in themselves. Biden is a career politician.
I honestly believe the concept of public service is natural for him and utterly alien to the others.

MP's need to be more accountable, no matter how much they get paid they need to be measured on performance via KPI's. Independent body's setup to produce statistics and performance measured against them and only these statics can be used by all politician instead of picking reports/stats that suit heir narrative (which we know as lies)

The voting system and process no longer works for the modern age. Need proportional representation, KPI's, Parliament open 365 days a year, would I pay them more, yes I would but they'd have 30 day's a year holiday and 2nd jobs banned. I'd restrict their voting in Parliament for a month for not answering questions properly, blatant lies or poor performance against KPI's. When not delivering on KPIs' they'd need to produce and implement a recovery plan, if that fails there gone.

All just for starters.

[greenmark]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

I disagree. Being an MP is the peak of vocational employment. They have other opportunities to earn. To pay them more would just be a bonus for them.
The last few years have demonstrated that some MP's and PM's should have never been allowed near positions of power.
Contrast Biden with BJ , Truss, Trump and Sunak. The latter are only interested in themselves. Biden is a career politician.
I honestly believe the concept of public service is natural for him and utterly alien to the others.

MP's need to be more accountable, no matter how much they get paid they need to be measured on performance via KPI's. Independent body's setup to produce statistics and performance measured against them and only these statics can be used by all politician instead of picking reports/stats that suit heir narrative (which we know as lies)

The voting system and process no longer works for the modern age. Need proportional representation, KPI's, Parliament open 365 days a year, would I pay them more, yes I would but they'd have 30 day's a year holiday and 2nd jobs banned. I'd restrict their voting in Parliament for a month for not answering questions properly, blatant lies or poor performance against KPI's. When not delivering on KPIs' they'd need to produce and implement a recovery plan, if that fails there gone.

All just for starters.

Not sure I like so much constraint. I don't mind MP's exploiting heir position priidng it doesn't cloud their judgement. They are elected to represent their constituents. The balance between that and party is extremely foggy.
I'm beginning to think PR is fair and logical. But I think it would result in many hung parliaments and coalitions and I'm not convinced we would gain anything from that change.
Above all your suggestions would require legislation and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. At least we don't have Putin as a leader. Jeez that's a poor endorsement of our country.

[ForFolksSake]

I blame the regulator primarily... Then the government for creating an environment in which this mess could happen.

The private companies have a responsibility to maximise returns for shareholders & it was the regulators job to recognise this and balance that with customer / national interest. Especially in light of the fact these companies run local monopolies and so face no competition / pressures to make themselves more efficient / provide good value to customers.

I'd also argue against James's point in this case (that private companies are more efficient) as we have a direct comparison with the still nationalised Scottish Water & the fiasco down south... Just one of example of which is the chief exec gets paid a tiny fraction of the massive renumeration packages of his peers in England.

sionascaig - let's face it, up here in scotland the remit and approach is very different. one only has to review areas such as social care, university fees, free prescriptions etc, etc... to see where the heart and soul of this society is.

Same as everywhere, there's only a finite pot. Giving people free XYZ just means another department somewhere else is losing out.

Yeah, the 'Weather' department for starters

[jamesedwards]

Same with people moaning about the size of MP salaries. 650 MPs cost the country £60m in salary, yet they are directly responsible for the spending and efficiency of a £2.3tn economy. That's 0.0026%. There's a strong argument that we should be paying them much more to ensure we attract the very highest calibre.

I disagree. Being an MP is the peak of vocational employment. They have other opportunities to earn. To pay them more would just be a bonus for them.
The last few years have demonstrated that some MP's and PM's should have never been allowed near positions of power.
Contrast Biden with BJ , Truss, Trump and Sunak. The latter are only interested in themselves. Biden is a career politician.
I honestly believe the concept of public service is natural for him and utterly alien to the others.

MP's need to be more accountable, no matter how much they get paid they need to be measured on performance via KPI's. Independent body's setup to produce statistics and performance measured against them and only these statics can be used by all politician instead of picking reports/stats that suit heir narrative (which we know as lies)

The voting system and process no longer works for the modern age. Need proportional representation, KPI's, Parliament open 365 days a year, would I pay them more, yes I would but they'd have 30 day's a year holiday and 2nd jobs banned. I'd restrict their voting in Parliament for a month for not answering questions properly, blatant lies or poor performance against KPI's. When not delivering on KPIs' they'd need to produce and implement a recovery plan, if that fails there gone.

All just for starters.

I don't disagree with much of this. But don't confuse parliament being closed with an MP being on holiday. MPs spend just as much time, if not more, working in their constituency. Representing their constituents in Parliament is only part of their responsibility.

[Michael5482]

I disagree. Being an MP is the peak of vocational employment. They have other opportunities to earn. To pay them more would just be a bonus for them.
The last few years have demonstrated that some MP's and PM's should have never been allowed near positions of power.
Contrast Biden with BJ , Truss, Trump and Sunak. The latter are only interested in themselves. Biden is a career politician.
I honestly believe the concept of public service is natural for him and utterly alien to the others.

MP's need to be more accountable, no matter how much they get paid they need to be measured on performance via KPI's. Independent body's setup to produce statistics and performance measured against them and only these statics can be used by all politician instead of picking reports/stats that suit heir narrative (which we know as lies)

The voting system and process no longer works for the modern age. Need proportional representation, KPI's, Parliament open 365 days a year, would I pay them more, yes I would but they'd have 30 day's a year holiday and 2nd jobs banned. I'd restrict their voting in Parliament for a month for not answering questions properly, blatant lies or poor performance against KPI's. When not delivering on KPIs' they'd need to produce and implement a recovery plan, if that fails there gone.

All just for starters.

Not sure I like so much constraint. I don't mind MP's exploiting heir position priidng it doesn't cloud their judgement. They are elected to represent their constituents. The balance between that and party is extremely foggy.
I'm beginning to think PR is fair and logical. But I think it would result in many hung parliaments and coalitions and I'm not convinced we would gain anything from that change.
Above all your suggestions would require legislation and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. At least we don't have Putin as a leader. Jeez that's a poor endorsement of our country.

Another I'd throw in is have an actual Cabinet Government (Chancellor, Energy Minister etc etc ) then I'd have constituency MP's. Yes it'll cost a bit more but in the grand scheme of things it's peanuts

Whatever way you look at it Labour and Tory's are equally as culpable when previously been in power since the country's slow monumental decline. My take is Labour are clueless and Tory's just f@ck up everything they touch then when in power they blame each other.

My Labour MP is already under pressure for voting to keep the two child benefit cap, the winter fuel allowance removal and the 4,000 illegal immigrants that have came since her election. She spent the last few years employed at the GMB Union campaigning and telling everyone about child and fuel poverty amongst other things.

The other day she only decided to advertise for staff despite being in office for two months, she's green as grass and getting absolutely battered by the town already including Labour voters. A lot of these MP's are way out there depth she's one of them.

[greenmark]

MP's need to be more accountable, no matter how much they get paid they need to be measured on performance via KPI's. Independent body's setup to produce statistics and performance measured against them and only these statics can be used by all politician instead of picking reports/stats that suit heir narrative (which we know as lies)

The voting system and process no longer works for the modern age. Need proportional representation, KPI's, Parliament open 365 days a year, would I pay them more, yes I would but they'd have 30 day's a year holiday and 2nd jobs banned. I'd restrict their voting in Parliament for a month for not answering questions properly, blatant lies or poor performance against KPI's. When not delivering on KPIs' they'd need to produce and implement a recovery plan, if that fails there gone.

All just for starters.

Not sure I like so much constraint. I don't mind MP's exploiting heir position priidng it doesn't cloud their judgement. They are elected to represent their constituents. The balance between that and party is extremely foggy.
I'm beginning to think PR is fair and logical. But I think it would result in many hung parliaments and coalitions and I'm not convinced we would gain anything from that change.
Above all your suggestions would require legislation and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. At least we don't have Putin as a leader. Jeez that's a poor endorsement of our country.

Another I'd throw in is have an actual Cabinet Government (Chancellor, Energy Minister etc etc ) then I'd have constituency MP's. Yes it'll cost a bit more but in the grand scheme of things it's peanuts

Whatever way you look at it Labour and Tory's are equally as culpable when previously been in power since the country's slow monumental decline. My take is Labour are clueless and Tory's just f@ck up everything they touch then when in power they blame each other.

My Labour MP is already under pressure for voting to keep the two child benefit cap, the winter fuel allowance removal and the 4,000 illegal immigrants that have came since her election. She spent the last few years employed at the GMB Union campaigning and telling everyone about child and fuel poverty amongst other things.

The other day she only decided to advertise for staff despite being in office for two months, she's green as grass and getting absolutely battered by the town already including Labour voters. A lot of these MP's are way out there depth she's one of them.

I like "way out of their depth". They have no baggage. Let's hope they have the passion to do the right thing. But that is on all of us. Wandering down to a polling station every 5 years isn't enough. We should all feel empowered to attend an MP's surgery and speak our mind. I think you would be good at that. I know our opinions can be swept aside by nepotism, but you have to be true to your values or you have nothing.

[Archery1969]

So, the new government is looking into banning smoking outside pubs, clubs, restaurants and stadiums.

My god, I don’t smoke anymore but come on, this is ridiculous.

You can’t just say smoking costs the NHS £50 billion a year, how much does fat people cost the NHS per year and drinking. You going to ban fat people and drinking too ?

It’s going to get to the point whereby you need to work until your 70, not allowed to smoke, drink, be overweight or disagree with the government.

What a shit show….

[ForFolksSake]

The fallacy that private companies are better at running public services is now clearly nonsense. Problem is the govt are pretty crap at it too.
We need a cultural shift. Instead of "me" it needs to be "us". I only use trains 3 times a year but the on board and station staff are excellent. They really are lions led by donkeys (greedy ones to boot).

Yep.... and it looks like the proposed '!0p fuel duty hike' is going to pay for the train drivers 15% pay offer

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... p-will-hit

[sionascaig]

Yep.... and it looks like the proposed '!0p fuel duty hike' is going to pay for the train drivers 15% pay offer

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... p-will-hit

Suspect it is the dead cat tactic - throw that on the table and everyone is distracted from all the other stuff that's going on..

England only I might add ! (for now)