Improving the register of MPs interests
Posted byAlex Parsons17th January 2024
Posted in Democracy, Repowering Democracy, TheyWorkForYou
Tl;dr: We’re now releasing our register of interests data as a spreadsheet.
High quality data about the external interests of our MPs and ministers is vital to identifying conflicts of interests, and discouraging politicians from having conflicts of interest in the first place.
Lack of clarity on the interests and income streams of MPs is a corruption risk. The problem with second jobs and outside interests is less that MPs might be distracted from their main job – but that when they stand in Parliament, they may be representing groups beyond their constituents, asking questions (or not asking questions) depending on their outside work.
When outside interests exist, it’s vital they are clear and transparent. The Register of Members Interests contains a list of disclosures MPs are required to make of financial interests or benefits which “others might reasonably consider to influence his or her actions or words as a Member of Parliament”. Following the Owen Patterson scandal, there was renewed interest in this data, as it was clear that there were a number of potential stories and scandals hidden in plain sight – just requiring someone to join up the data.
A start to eliminate cash/gifts for questions in parliament/access to MP’s.
Neither the Politicians nor being in or out of Brexit will solve the greater issues.
In simple terms England has a population of 57million but really only has the land area and resources to support 30 million comfortably.
It is not impossible but is a very difficult long standing challenge which
only a series of miracles as yet undiscovered can over come.
I totally agree Waimiha, and still they let people in despite the fact that we don’t have the resources to look after them or us.
I forecast great hardship and poverty in the near future.
Welcome to the forum by the way David good to read you…
This issue has come in the past. Why is it such an issue for England, with a density of 435 people per sq km? The UK density is 280 people per sq km. Netherlands is 520 people per sq km - so more than 20% dense than England and almost twice as dense as the UK. India has 470 people per sq km. Singapore has 8,590 (yes, 20 times that of England). The notion that England is exceptionally unable to cope with the population it has is patently false. Which is different from saying that the current administration are able to make it work.
Yes but in England the standards are high and we are living the dream…That’s why everybody wants to come and live here. The Dutch are having to close all of their farming so they must live on imports…
Dutch agricultural production:
14 million tons of cow milk;
6.5 million tons of sugar beet, which is used to produce sugar and ethanol;
6.0 million tonnes of potatoes (10th largest producer in the world);
1.2 million tons of onion;
961 thousand tons of wheat;
910 thousand tons of tomato;
538 thousand tons of carrot;
410 thousand tons of cucumber;
402 thousand tons of pear;
355 thousand tons of bell pepper;
300 thousand tons of mushroom and truffle;
295 thousand tons of lettuce;
269 thousand tons of apple;
247 thousand tons of barley.
Not bad for a country that has closed all its farming.
Could you just repeat that
Not for long though Bruce…
Yet so much complaining about how awful it all is…
And are you seriously suggesting that the standard of living in Holland is so much lower than in the UK? It ain’t. But someone recently stated on another thread that “UK has been going steadily downhill and become a poor third world country”. So like India just less densely populated then?
What exactly is standard of living and is standard of living
the same as quality of life?
Also I would like to see the “stats” if there are any on the percentage of people in each level
Very very well off
Very well off
Really really strugling.
Without these facts and percentages we really can not accurately compare strata domestically let alone internationally.
No Lincs, it’s you who are suggesting that…
And the UK is going steadily downhill. Have you had a walk round the backstreets of Rotherham, Sheffield or Doncaster just lately. And London and Birmingham have turned into a mish mash of foreign countries.
It’s still English and very nice where I live though…For now.
I’m not sick of the system but I could be better.
I do think the main house should be elected by PR but there should be fewer MP’s in it 400-450 or so?
They should receive a significantly bigger salary ( yes its controversial). But should have zero outside interests no jobs, no directorships etc, any stock ownerships or other interests should be registered and made public.
Post being an MP they should be banned from any role even slightly associated with any previous ministerial roles etc.
I would even go as far as suggesting that ministers should have all assets placed into a blind fund whilst there are in the role.
The trouble with people like them [the politicians and those British people who support the EU) expect people like me [hard working plebs] to pick up a rifle and shoot the enemy like so many of our dads, grandads and great grandads did in two world wars.
Isn’t the tweet you quoted actually saying that Dutch farms are going strong and have community support?
Hardly evidence to support all their farms being closed down. Governments threaten all sorts of things to try to get their own way, I recall the UK government constantly threatening to withdraw from Brexit negotiations but did they?
The Netherlands still have a far greater population density than the UK and a farming industry with community support so you can hardly claim to be overpopulated. Perhaps Britain’s problem is actually just bad management?
Another factor that really does need to be considered is that the UK population is old and getting, on average, older. This means there are more people in retirement age and, as a consequence, fewer people of a working age to fill vacancies and key jobs. Plus the increasingly old need care and that means they need carers. So there is a desperate need for more people to come to the UK to fill these roles. Conjuring up an idea that the UK is over-populated, which it isn’t, is simply not addressing the bigger issue of shortage of workers.
Ask and you shall, partly, receive:
Ok, its not all the breakdown you wanted but clearly such data is readily found with a quick search. Nonetheless the key bit from this article (for me) are
To be in the top 10% you need to be earning £60k or more.
To be in the top 5% it means earning £82k +
Top 1% is 182k+
Between 2010-21 wealth in the UK rose by £4trilion, but 25% went to just the top 1%. Their wealth increased 31 times more in that period than everyone else. Shocking.
But (surprise) 60% of people who earn £80k-100k think they are “average earners”!
Thanks for this.
Yes I am aware of there being a spread of income and circumstances
that’s why I asked.
I guess the details of how the top 10% are taxed would be needed and where that tax goes would be fair to know too.
How the so called bottom 50% survive would be interesting.
I would imagine the bottom 50% would not survive with out the NHS so calls for its abandoment would be scary to say the least.
Then those in the middle probably feel agrieved at the top 20% wealth and held back by the lower 30% reliance on benefits and NHS.
Its a complex challenge
And another factor is the unprecedented number of people unable to work due to sickness, that’s what happens when a government deliberately runs down the health service with a view to privatise it.
I suspect that the tax for the majority of top 10% and even top 5% is pretty much PAYE rates. There will be quite a few small business owners here as well. But the top 1% band will likely be more difficult to find details on tax payment. Many won’t be simply salaried and could be taking their earnings as directors dividends (I think about 35% tax at the top end rather than 45% for PAYE). That is, they are paying less tax than someone on PAYE and NI.
Also, the numbers shown are top 10%, 5% and 1% of earnings and not wealth. There will be a fair number at the top end who take money from their wealth, taxed as capital gains or something other than PAYE, and thus paying less tax for the earnings they take. In short, if you want to be able to access tax efficiencies you need to have lots of money. Everyone just has to cough up.