Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Genie said:

Are the government going to start allocating reference numbers to the U-Turns to make them easier to discuss?

It would be much better if they gave them names like storms 🤣

U-Turn Boris, Policy Change Michael, Was Always Bollocks Domonic....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

It would be much better if they gave them names like storms 🤣

U-Turn Boris, Policy Change Michael, Was Always Bollocks Domonic....

It’s a nightmare for people like Starmer in PMQ’s

KS: ...and I want to raise the issue of the ridiculous U-Turn by the prime minister last week putting lives at risk

Speaker: I’m sorry, you’re going to need to be much more specific that that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Genie said:

I wonder if the job paid something like £1m a year they’d get a better calibre of “applicant. 

There's several problems with the way you are framing this, but the two most obvious are firstly, that there are no 'applicants' and it isn't a job, but a public position. Boris became PM because he won a ballot of Tory party members against Jeremy Hunt. Johnson didn't win because Tory party members thought he would be more deserving of 150k, or even because they thought he would be a more 'competent' 'manager' of the country; he won for the reasons all politicians win leadership battles - because the selectorate liked him more and trusted him more to deliver their policy and electoral goals.

Secondly, coded in the idea that paying more would lead to a 'better calibre of applicant' is the idea that we *should* be governed by investment bankers, FTSE CEOs and corporate lawyers - as opposed to, I don't know, social workers, nurses or firefighters - and it isn't at all clear why that would be the case. How much people get paid is a measure of the market value of their skills and qualifications, not a measure of intelligence, good judgement or intrinsic worth.

I know I have argued on here that politicians should be paid more, but this is a bad argument for doing so.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's several problems with the way you are framing this, but the two most obvious are firstly, that there are no 'applicants' and it isn't a job, but a public position. Boris became PM because he won a ballot of Tory party members against Jeremy Hunt. Johnson didn't win because Tory party members thought he would be more deserving of 150k, or even because they thought he would be a more 'competent' 'manager' of the country; he won for the reasons all politicians win leadership battles - because the selectorate liked him more and trusted him more to deliver their policy and electoral goals.

Secondly, coded in the idea that paying more would lead to a 'better calibre of applicant' is the idea that we *should* be governed by investment bankers, FTSE CEOs and corporate lawyers - as opposed to, I don't know, social workers, nurses or firefighters - and it isn't at all clear why that would be the case. How much people get paid is a measure of the market value of their skills and qualifications, not a measure of intelligence, good judgement or intrinsic worth.

I know I have argued on here that politicians should be paid more, but this is a bad argument for doing so.

I agree there are holes in the idea I suggested. Very broadly I suggest that if the base pay was higher you might get more people switching from high performing roles in other industries into politics.

If you double the salary it doesn’t mean you’ll get someone twice as good of course, but I think it would open it and make it more attractive to more good people willing to make the move.

 

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Genie said:

I agree there are holes in the idea I suggested. Very broadly I suggest that if the base pay was higher you might get more people switching from high performing roles in other industries into politics.

If you double the salary it doesn’t mean you’ll get someone twice as good of course, but I think it would open it and make it more attractive to more good people willing to make the move.

I k ow what you’re saying, but I don’t think so, nor do I think that it should be so. 80 grand a year plus expenses is more than enough to attract people from a huge number of roles, surely? There are already disproportionately loads of bankers, career politicians, millionaires and the like in politics. Not so many nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, police, call centre workers...

politics doesn’t need more people from high paid jobs, which tend to be in finance etc. It needs more people in it not just to earn money, but to bring experience of wider society who actually want to do the job for its own sake, not as an earning opportunity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Genie said:

I agree there are holes in the idea I suggested. Very broadly I suggest that if the base pay was higher you might get more people switching from high performing roles in other industries into politics.

If you double the salary it doesn’t mean you’ll get someone twice as good of course, but I think it would open it and make it more attractive to more good people willing to make the move.

If the money is what is important for someone to join a political party, gain a chance of winning a seat, be an MP representing a constituency and then network their party to gain internal support to be the PM, it’s probably an indicator that they are the wrong person for the job.

Equally, it could make some sections of society presume it is not a job they should be considered for. If you grew up in a fairly average household then the basic MP salary might well be the most money anyone in your family, or from your post code, has ever earned. To have the PM earning £500k or £1 Million may convince some perfectly decent and sensible people that they are not PM material. Possibly, I’m not convinced it’s a large number.

But an MP’s salary is more than double the average salary. I think that’s probably about enough.

Or to put it another way, if nobody else is willing to step up to the plate, I’d happily do it for those numbers, whilst everyone else gets on with being a genius in their specialist fields.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we’re coming at it from different angles.

As a very general rule in society in general the bigger the remuneration the better the candidate that it would appeal to.

Even something like football, if a club is looking for a player with a budget of £30k/w the better players on £40/50/60k already won’t consider it. The pool is smaller.

If the top job in politics pays £150k for an immense amount of stress and scrutiny then many very capable people will not bother getting involved. The PMs advisors are on about £20,000 a year more than the MPs which doesn’t feel right. 

I know you’re coming from the ideological viewpoint that it is a lot of money to most people which it is, and it’s an honour to represent you’re constituents which it is, but the money has to match the role which imo it doesn’t. The fact that so many have other jobs or even shady business dealings suggest many are not in it for the love of representing their people.

Fwiw I think the MP salary is not too far off where it should be. PM salary could/should be doubled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AVFC_Hitz said:

Playing the devil's avocado but I think it's 10pm so people don't get too drunk that they start getting lairy and too close.

However, this is the UK. We have cheeky airport pints at 4.30am, so the closing time will make no difference. People will just go out earlier. 

Half-arsed cack from govt again.

Exactly plus they will just go to each other’s houses to carry on the party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a bizarre couple of hours.

The kids went back to school and one of them picked up a cold. I then caught it too. Apparently pretty much the whole school has it.

The kid was at school fine but a bit snotty and coughed a bit.

Cue phone call from the school to collect him and not bring him back within 14 days or without receipt of a negative test.

The wife works for NHS who would then have to isolate for 14 days with the household so informs her manager.

Instant drive to the hospital for a test there which I have to do on the kid myself using some barely legible instructions after getting shouted at for getting out of my car and almost lynched by people walking past wanting to know how I got a test.

It'll come back negative this afternoon and kids will go back to school tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cyrusr said:

Boris clear and effective as always... 

Monkey Puppet GIF

Has anyone seen the movie The Campaign with Will Ferral? He’d finish all of his waffling useless response by shouting “support the troops” and doing a fist pump to which everyone cheered.

Boris seems to prefer to thank the NHS as a deflection and distraction to the fact he’s not answering the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see Boris Trump has announced serious action, pubs, bars and restaurants to close at 22:00 from Thursday and Weddings limited to 15 people. Lets get tough on this thing! 🙄😷

spacer.png

Oh and try to work from home again people! But once the ten-a-penny coffee shops start shouting be ready to get back on them buses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â