The fall of the Tory party

They have to donate it all to the state first. Seize the means of corruption.

There's no sane amount you can pay someone to avoid them being susceptible to corruption/bribery.

The possible future earnings for a minister with clout, or prime minister, is tens possibly hundreds of millions.

Most of the shady deals are of the form of "If you help us get this contract worth £1bn then we'll employ you and/or family members as advisers on £5m/year once it has all blown over".

If you start paying MPs £200k then they'll take the money and some/many will still do the above.

Restricting future opportunities based on what they were involved in whilst in power would be one step to preventing the above, but it really isn't simple as there are many thousands of ways around anti corruption laws/regulations.

MPs weren't paid until 1911. Before that it was hobby politicians who took occasional breaks from running their factories and country estates to come and run the country in a way that allowed them to keep their factories and country estates. These days it would be hedge fund owners and tech bros. Not something many of us would want to run back to.

I disagree

U.K. average salary plus London waiting. Plus car allowance.

No second homes, commute to hp or don’t do the job.

No second jobs, just focus on this one, then no lobbying on behalf of your bff’s

There should also be a test and experience based interview. If you were for example minister for agriculture you need to demonstrate an excellent working understanding of agriculture and show connection with this sector. Not just done a ppe degree.

Nah sorry, can't agree with that. She wasn't just going to church, she was an actual priest.

As @kl says the hypocrisy is therefore off the scale. She's not exempt from that because she never got promoted above a certain level.

I agree with that, as that's not what I was saying as I was only replying to a snippet of the previous post.

I'm saying that the fact that she was an ordained priest is relatively insignificant in this matter and that focusing on that too much could easily distract from the more important viewpoint. It cheapens the argument to go down the ad hominem route too far.

No second homes, commute to hp or don’t do the job.

This just seems set up to fuck the north.

So it meshes perfectly with government policy...

Agree with most of that with some variations.

No second homes, commute to hp or don’t do the job.

Second homes I don't mind, but they should be owned/provided/maintained for by a central Government agency (maybe a bit better than a dorm near HoP). You shouldn't get to buy a house in London, have the mortgage interest paid by the tax payer, and then sell it at a later date coining in the property value increase. But you do get to have your family able to come live close to you if your constituency is 500+ miles away. [EDIT - 500 miles isn't a minimum distance, they'd be open to any MP]

No second jobs, just focus on this one, then no lobbying on behalf of your bff’s

A limited list of allowed second jobs. For example, doctors need to continue to perform some professional duties to maintain their practising status.

But the AG does not need to continually fuck off to the Caribbean to do endless contracts for £££.

There should also be a test and experience based interview.

Yes, with a couple of wildcards that can be played to have a few people in power of something they may not be immediately involved with. Don't forget that there's the huge bulk of the civil service available under each minister, and they do employ lots of specialists. That doesn't mean that a shit minister can't run roughshod over everything though (the stories I've heard!)

Personally I'd also go for having MP elections more frequently. Not like a mass general election each year, but something close to a yearly recall petition for each MP. If whatever portion decide that they're not doing their job well enough then it can force a by-election.

As I said above, limits on future employments/remunerations based on involvement during their career. Be part of the team that approves a £4bn contract for Acme Corp and you can't go work for them in the future, or the amount you earn has to be commensurate with your involvement/employment, e.g. you can't just be paid £500k for 20 hours of sitting on an advisory board each year.

Paying them an average salary along with very unpredictable / short term employment terms (one year) and then limiting what they can do afterwards means you're going to restrict the pool of candidates to those that can afford to do it without their salary.

Presumably this will be those that are independently wealthy that we don't want to attract to the role.

I don't know how important it is to limit the candidates to those that desperately want to do the job, as that would tend to attract fanatics. We don't insist on this in most other roles (any private sectors one, police, judges, doctors etc). Competence and integrity alone seem a good enough starting point.

Depends on the "average salary" though. Too low and, as you say, the only people that would do it are the independently wealthy, which is no good. Too high and it's just wasting money as it's not going to prevent corruption. So it needs to be set at a level where it will encourage a good selection of people such that the local constituency panels can choose a suitable candidate rather than incumbent wanker gentry. Maybe that number is more than existing MPs are made, but I'm not worried about finding some specific number that we all agree on.

Competence and integrity alone seem a good enough starting point.

Well, yes, but it's impossible to accurately judge that in advance. What you need to be good at is being able to get rid of the ones that don't demonstrate competence and integrity once in the role. Guaranteeing them ~5 years employment where you don't even need to turn up is not the best basis for this.

As for limiting jobs, that's to prevent the £5m for 20 hours/year of advisory board type roles that are generally the reciprocal "scratch your back" roles. An MP that leaves and gets a "normal" job at a company they might have had involvement in is less of a problem.

There's already some stuff in place, see the ACOBA recommendations for David Cameron as an example: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cameron-david-prime-minister-acoba-recommendation/summary-of-business-appointments-applications-rt-hon-david-cameron

ACOBA

Part of the problem currently is that this body in particular appears to have no actual powers - it makes recommendations that are promptly ignored when it suits.

paying politicians so much that they are virtually incorruptible

On the proviso that they actually do the work, and are measured against proper targets. And that it can be clawed back.

Otherwise they'll just grift for 5 years and dial it in. I mean -just because yo uhave a lot of money doesn't mean that you don't want more.

Having lived here for a good while I think I’m pretty will placed to say it’s a BS. There’s still corruption, business leaders are in government and viceversa, lobbying is order of the day, there’s a tripartite system that’s so dysfunctional that it’s laughable, despite being a pseudo democracy they still have to gerrymander, opposition politicians and journalists regularly get sued to bankruptcy or put away. It’s all very passive aggressive/authoritarian.

Number 5 on Corruption Perception Index but it’s #4 on the Crony Capitalism Index as well.

Would you trust Sunak or Johnson’s wife to be the CEO of the sovereign wealth fund?

Meanwhile
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/10/eton-mess-college-delays-school-term-as-flooding-causes-toilets-to-back-up
Something Turds Not Flushing Something Something

measured against proper targets. And that it can be clawed back.

This is the thing isn't it? Paying an MP who does the job properly £35k, seems absolutely laughable to me. Especially given the fact that they have to campaign to get their job on a regular basis. You're firming into Criminal Bar territory where is basically sport for poshos. But on the flip side, if you're in a safe seat it could be a doss. Nadine Doris being absolute fucking peak piss take.

Also the idea that you can only select people with "relevant experience" for a cabinet position sounds cute, but it's not exactly practical. I cba to recite all of it but Rory Stuart has a lot of good suggestions on rotation and onboarding periods which are worth a read.

Rory Stuart has a lot of good suggestions on rotation and onboarding periods which are worth a read.

Suggestions like "have any kind onboarding period at all".

Given the Tories are ostensibly pro-business it's quite surprising how willing they are to put up with such heinous management practices. Imagine a company sacking their CTO and then putting a random manager from HR in as the replacement with no training or handover. That's basically how the cabinet works. Utterly ludicrous

Personally I'd also go for having MP elections more frequently. Not like a mass general election each year, but something close to a yearly recall petition for each MP. If whatever portion decide that they're not doing their job well enough then it can force a by-election.

Got to disagree with this..
The public are fickle as can be, and it's very open to abuse by the newpapers.

The LFGSS fantasy democratic framework has to have space for politicians to do unpopular things.

If we want MPs with experience (of healthcare, science, the military, business, etc.) we have to be paying a lot more than £35k

I would say pay them a very good wage, ban second jobs, ban them from earning money and non-government work for 10-15 years after they quit/lose their seat (with some sort of stipend). You can volunteer in a hospital, but no cushy speeches to hedge funds.

If you commit a crime and get recalled this approach isn't very good though.

The MP would be free to stand again. If they're any good at their job they'd be re-elected without a problem.

We already have a system where no deeply unpopular decisions are made because we're on a 4-5 year cycle, so let's try something shorter to see if that would help.

(The better answer to Parliamentary reform is proper PR, but I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime in the UK.)

2nd jobs for MPs
Qualified professionals, who have a requirement to remain current, probably mainly healthcare professionals, need to be able pick up their careers if voted out.
Talentless, unqualified placemen, Owen Paterson & Matt Hancock spring to mind, 110% tax on any outside earnings, because even if they do not realise it, they are being paid as lobbyists and for access to (spending) decision makers.

Also, any unscheduled absence from Parliament, (Dorries & Hancock), expulsion from Parliament, no severance package, loss of all pension rights accrued.
An MP is elected to serve their electorate, not build a profile for a future z-list celebrity career.

If they're any good at their job they'd be re-elected without a problem.

I'm really not sure this is the case. Many outstanding constituency MPs have been washed away by the tides of national politics, and that will continue to happen. Most voters haven't the blindest clue who their MP is or if they're any good, and there aren't too many ways the MP can materially affect that.

I'm assuming a combination of voter intransigence and voter apathy would keep the majority of MPs in their job. They'd have to do whatever is necessary to trigger the recall part, then turn out in the required numbers to overturn their existing majority for anything to change..

It's far from perfect, but it is (IMHO) just a suggested for a step up from the existing system of hiring someone for 4-5 years with zero recourse unless they really do fuck up considerably.

Parliamentarian pay should be on at least the level of the leader of an NHS trust, multi-academy trust, or council chief executive, so circa £150k. Fund the increase by abolishing the House of Lords and reducing the number of elected parliamentarians to around 100. We need people with more ability to scrutinise government policy and frame our laws.

It always makes me laugh when people try and counter 2nd jobs with "oh but what about Dr/etc?"

Mate, if you think you can legislate Rwanda into safe country as a fact of law, then you can write a fucking numbered list of carve-out professions that need CPD points (such list not to include 'board member').