Should we pay politicans more?
Discussion
Hi,
I have only taken an interest in politics fairly recently so go easy on me, I'm no expert.
However was musing whilst stuck in traffic yesterday.......
To outline my thoughts
Its widely considered that we have a shower of s
te currently in parliament and choosing seems to be coming down to who's going to further cock it up the least.
Is this because being a politician just isn't appealing or does it just not pay enough.
£65k for a regular MP
£140K for Leader of the Opposition
£145K for Lord Chancellor
£198K for PM
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m06.pdf
Now that seems quiet a comfortable salary to me but the point is, is it enough to attract the best and the brightest. I would say not, I think £200k to run the country is an absolute pittance, I wouldn't do it for that even if i thought i could. To take a extreme and not so relevant example how much does a middle of the road premiership football manager get paid. Or perhaps more relevant a MD of a reasonably sized company.
I think similar but not as extreme examples could as easily be drawn up for MP's as well.
Now obviously i'm well aware that historically been given a "generous" expenses package and i'm sure living in number 10 is very nice.
Which leads me onto another question now they've all but scrapped that or are trying to as everyone ties themselves in knots wanting to appear whiter than white. Will it even attract the calibre of people we have now? Or will it put even more people off now "the package old boy" isn't what it used to be? Or potentially worse will we just get the people that don't need the money as family ties have sorted that aspect out.
I wouldn't want to be the one to float it to the populous but i reckon if we paid a bit more we'd get a bit more. There's only so much people will do for a vocation.
N.b. Aware of future salaries, sidelines etc but I personally don't think that's relevant.
Sorry for the brain dump, just wanted to see if i was being reasonable in my thoughts.....
I have only taken an interest in politics fairly recently so go easy on me, I'm no expert.
However was musing whilst stuck in traffic yesterday.......
To outline my thoughts
Its widely considered that we have a shower of s
te currently in parliament and choosing seems to be coming down to who's going to further cock it up the least. Is this because being a politician just isn't appealing or does it just not pay enough.
£65k for a regular MP
£140K for Leader of the Opposition
£145K for Lord Chancellor
£198K for PM
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m06.pdf
Now that seems quiet a comfortable salary to me but the point is, is it enough to attract the best and the brightest. I would say not, I think £200k to run the country is an absolute pittance, I wouldn't do it for that even if i thought i could. To take a extreme and not so relevant example how much does a middle of the road premiership football manager get paid. Or perhaps more relevant a MD of a reasonably sized company.
I think similar but not as extreme examples could as easily be drawn up for MP's as well.
Now obviously i'm well aware that historically been given a "generous" expenses package and i'm sure living in number 10 is very nice.
Which leads me onto another question now they've all but scrapped that or are trying to as everyone ties themselves in knots wanting to appear whiter than white. Will it even attract the calibre of people we have now? Or will it put even more people off now "the package old boy" isn't what it used to be? Or potentially worse will we just get the people that don't need the money as family ties have sorted that aspect out.
I wouldn't want to be the one to float it to the populous but i reckon if we paid a bit more we'd get a bit more. There's only so much people will do for a vocation.
N.b. Aware of future salaries, sidelines etc but I personally don't think that's relevant.
Sorry for the brain dump, just wanted to see if i was being reasonable in my thoughts.....
Edited by waterwonder on Monday 2nd November 19:12
Edited by waterwonder on Monday 2nd November 19:15
£35K and that's being generous.
They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and fking hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent.
Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and f
king hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent. Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
Tangent Police said:
£35K and that's being generous.
They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and fking hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent.
Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and f
king hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent. Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
TBH, I don't think any of my MPs have ever really done anything for the locality, every time I contact them I get some bulls
t response about it being "nothing to do with me guv", so why not sack the effing lot of them and have one elected leader of the current civil Service and be done with it.I also think the current goverment is a shambles and in most cases aren't worth the money.
So i can see where this is going but............
If we were to start from a fresh.
I.e forget about who we have in at the moment have a etcha sketch moment and start from scratch.
If we were selecting new candidates would it be better to pay more to get better?
So i can see where this is going but............
If we were to start from a fresh.
I.e forget about who we have in at the moment have a etcha sketch moment and start from scratch.
If we were selecting new candidates would it be better to pay more to get better?
Edited by waterwonder on Monday 2nd November 19:26
35k sounds reasonable, build some digs in London for them to stay in.
Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
waterwonder said:
I also think the current goverment is a shambles and in most cases aren't worth the money.
So i can see where this is going but............
If we were to start from a fresh.
I.e forget about who we have in at the moment have a etcha sketch moment and start from scratch.
If we were selecting new candidates would it be better to pay more to get better.
No - they add absolutely nothing to anything.So i can see where this is going but............
If we were to start from a fresh.
I.e forget about who we have in at the moment have a etcha sketch moment and start from scratch.
If we were selecting new candidates would it be better to pay more to get better.
We have a police force, with a boss.
We have armed forces, with bosses,
We have health services etc etc etc, all up and running and capable of doing a good job if left to it without political interference.
Use the Civil Service to "run" the country and have a vote once a year on what tax we all pay and what percentage should go to what service. That way "we" get to decied how the country is run, not someone telling us how to run OUR country.
M3333 said:
35k sounds reasonable, build some digs in London for them to stay in.
Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
The bit about digs I like.. Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
Personally I think they are underpaid, especially PM. But saying that, at the moment it is not a full time job for them. If they are an MP they should be forbidden to have ANY other paid for work in any form whilst in office. Minimum 40 hour week with Travel expenses only.
Personally I think it should be rated on the number of people in the constituency. So for a hamlet of only 100 people you get paid £20k, but for a City suberb of 250k people you get paid £100k.
PM in my opinion should be close to £500k if you were to compare it to the private sector, but saying that, they should be made FAR more accountable to public opinion.
This will never happen as they are all corrupt barterds. So its probably right as it is.. Why throw good money after bad !?
What percentile is 140k in? I suspect it's easily enough to be in the top 5% which should be more than enough.
It's probably more of a problem that they're too high and seem to attract morally corrupt people while putting off more ordinary folk who have lived more ordinary, more representative, lives.
It's probably more of a problem that they're too high and seem to attract morally corrupt people while putting off more ordinary folk who have lived more ordinary, more representative, lives.
I think they should earn minimum wage and only get paid for what hours they do.
No bonuses, no John lewis lists, no sky TV paid for and no paid rents/lodgings.
They are not representitive of the common man at the moment and their numbers are largely made up of career politicians who went to college/Uni, got involved in some political think tank for a bit while being brought on in a few practise elections and then when the time/place was right they got elected because they were marginally less onerous than the other candidate.
Mr Milliband, I am looking at you boy.....
and you Balls, sit still at the back.
No, we need to elect people from the communities they will represent. not policy wonks who want the money and dream of the "legacy". Blair, stop sniggering.
Anyone who has no idea how the lives of the voters actually works should be excluded.
Mind you, they say we get the Govt. we deserve.
No bonuses, no John lewis lists, no sky TV paid for and no paid rents/lodgings.
They are not representitive of the common man at the moment and their numbers are largely made up of career politicians who went to college/Uni, got involved in some political think tank for a bit while being brought on in a few practise elections and then when the time/place was right they got elected because they were marginally less onerous than the other candidate.
Mr Milliband, I am looking at you boy.....
and you Balls, sit still at the back.
No, we need to elect people from the communities they will represent. not policy wonks who want the money and dream of the "legacy". Blair, stop sniggering.
Anyone who has no idea how the lives of the voters actually works should be excluded.
Mind you, they say we get the Govt. we deserve.
Tangent Police said:
£35K and that's being generous.
They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and fking hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent.
Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
They won't increase in number as there are a defined number of seats. I think you need to recognise that once these guys get to ministerial positions they are managing budgets way in excess of those within the private sector. They are public servants, we don't need lots of them and if we make it less desirable, it will be less desirable for them to do it, then increase their number/scope/control.
£35K is not bad money really. Bear in mind you are dealing with a lot of unqualified, or irrelevantly qualified idealistic idiots. Perhaps if the pay wasn't so good, perhaps they would empathise more with their electorate.
£35K ceiling. If you don't like it, there is the private sector and f
king hell, you could even be an entrepreneur if you have sufficient ability/flair/talent. Choice is there. UK cannot afford to spunk money on a controlling class.
If we are looking for the cream of the country to manage the £100bn spent on the NHS each year do you really want some mediocre twerp to be pissing it away? Honestly paying politicians well and getting the cream of the country in is a massively beneficial investment. I'd rather spend an extra £100k on a politician to avoid them pissing any more of my money against the wall.
Just to pop a couple of numbers in this an extra £100k per MP would cost each member of the electorate 92p whereas the cock-up over the NHS IT system cost £12.4bn- that's over £200 for every man woman and child in this country
Not fussed about PM's salary- by the time they get there their salary is of little consequence as the real money earning potential comes post office, witness Tony Blair/Bill Clinton et al
bakerjuk said:
M3333 said:
35k sounds reasonable, build some digs in London for them to stay in.
Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
The bit about digs I like.. Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
Personally I think they are underpaid, especially PM. But saying that, at the moment it is not a full time job for them. If they are an MP they should be forbidden to have ANY other paid for work in any form whilst in office. Minimum 40 hour week with Travel expenses only.
Personally I think it should be rated on the number of people in the constituency. So for a hamlet of only 100 people you get paid £20k, but for a City superb of 250k people you get paid £100k.
PM in my opinion should be close to £500k if you were to compare it to the private sector, but saying that, they should be made FAR more accountable to public opinion.
This will never happen as they are all corrupt barterds. So its probably right as it is.. Why throw good money after bad !?
I have no problem with a PM being on 500k a year if he has a proven track record of success in real life experience profit making companies and understands the importance of financial management and efficiency for the tax payer.
Sadly with the current lot (MP's and most public sector senior employee's) if you asked them to make a 1% saving they would probably not be able to do it. In a private organisation they would be playing golf by 10am, that is the difference.
I think the point i am trying to make is the pay scale for anyone in public office could be anything as long as they we as tax payers are getting value for money from them.........
In this climate it is a joke and they do not care.....
Edited by M3333 on Monday 2nd November 19:46
M3333 said:
bakerjuk said:
M3333 said:
35k sounds reasonable, build some digs in London for them to stay in.
Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
The bit about digs I like.. Is it not about time MP's were rewarded on performance?
From what i can see an MP can sit for 5 years, do bugger all, rape the tax payer for a lot of cash, employ family members, get kicked out and never have to justify anything?
Then again years ago MP's did not get paid a salary, it was a second job and a privilege to serve the country......
Personally I think they are underpaid, especially PM. But saying that, at the moment it is not a full time job for them. If they are an MP they should be forbidden to have ANY other paid for work in any form whilst in office. Minimum 40 hour week with Travel expenses only.
Personally I think it should be rated on the number of people in the constituency. So for a hamlet of only 100 people you get paid £20k, but for a City suberb of 250k people you get paid £100k.
PM in my opinion should be close to £500k if you were to compare it to the private sector, but saying that, they should be made FAR more accountable to public opinion.
This will never happen as they are all corrupt barterds. So its probably right as it is.. Why throw good money after bad !?
I have no problem with a PM being on 500k a year if he has a proven track record of success in real life experience profit making companies and understands the importance of financial management and efficiency for the tax payer.
M3333 said:
Sadly with the current lot (MP's and most public sector senior employee's) if you asked them to make a 1% saving they would probably not be able to do it. In a private organisation they would be playing gold by 10am, that is the difference.
I think the point i am trying to make is the pay scale for anyone in public office could be anything as long as they we as tax payers are getting value for money from them.........
In this climate it is a joke and they do not care.....
+ 1 for that. I think the point i am trying to make is the pay scale for anyone in public office could be anything as long as they we as tax payers are getting value for money from them.........
In this climate it is a joke and they do not care.....
bakerjuk said:
Trouble is, that the private sector is not so constrained by political correctness, if my CEO decided I was going to go then thats that... If the PM decides to close an office then it is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS a bad thing in the media, even if it is a good thing.. they just cant win..
Agreed and that is part of the problem with modern politics. We have career politicians who are more concerned about the way they are portrayed in the media and staying in power than serving the people of this country.I bet that a good private sector person who has worked at director level and did not care what the media think could walk through office after office after office of public sector employee's, ask them what they are doing, get an 'uummmmmmm durrr dunno' reply and empty office after office after office saving millions.
You know i do not think the electorate are as daft as everyone thinks and maybe the media would eventually side with this ethos, especially if we started to see stealth tax cuts and low taxation on wages and better public services!
Edited by M3333 on Monday 2nd November 20:01
Outsource as much as possible, forget "people responsible for hundreds of people, more than in the private sector". Not under me, chum 
Realistically, you could first get rid of about 8/10 bullst laws, drink driving, speeding, blah, etc. Introduce horrible penalties for anything really awful. Put the responsibility back on people and then if they break serious laws, lock 'em up. 8/10 of legal bullst and presiders not required. Benefits, simplify everything hugely, we are talking food tickets and that's about it. How difficult would it be to administer food tickets. Number per house. A database monkey could do that for a town, easy. Pay them next to nothing. Education. Get rid of the red tape, just lose it, lose the inspectors, ofsted, etc. It's all bullst, whilst we have a huge excess of staff, chuck the pay scales in the bin. Make the staff put in bids for their own jobs. If you don't like the price that it's been bid down to, get work elsewhere! Police... Since we have got rid of 8/10 of the law, the remaining 1/2 (;)) of the police can concentrate on catching those people who are breaking the remaining 2/10 of the law! Tax, get rid of all the bullst and allowances and put in a flat rate that encourages investment/success. When you have realised a profit figure for the government, THEN you may consider how you spend it. Since they won't be in charge of £billions of budget, they pay of the people won't even be questioned to reflect it.
If you kick this ridiculous top heavy mess into touch, it will free up commerce, investment, entrepreneurs, encourage parasites to get a grip or fk off, go somewhere like the EUSSR to go on the dole and leave us to a lower population density. (If you want unnecessary hospital services, get your chequebook out).
I lack a romatic view of social democracy, because it's too expensive and doesn't work.
The path to success is not with more quangos, more initiatives, buzzwords and performance managers and skewed indicators of such, it's hacking the absolute st out of the system to make it cost effective and give the people what they want. Respect and freedom.
Politicians have led themselves up a self-rewarding, self-interested path and we don't need most of them. It's about time we got a party to vote for who shared these views. Then we could see a bloody change from the corrupt and hugely expensive biscuit-wking club that is the UK government.
Whilst you have an excess of qualified staff (the uni's are churning them out) and a country that has raped it's own arse to ribbons financially, it seems utterly insane not to let people bid down for their public sector work. (A view I had when I was a part of public sector teaching). (Cue people blathering about quality vs cost) -(it's bullst).
I understand that hacking the public sector about would hit GDP and therefore the £, BUT it would make our primary industries more viable (I would love to see those ex-commie labour MP's back in the pit cages). The UK seems to have some sort of arrogance to getting all the rewards for doing fk all. This attitude stems from the top. It's time it was chopped about a bit. 
Realistically, you could first get rid of about 8/10 bulls
t laws, drink driving, speeding, blah, etc. Introduce horrible penalties for anything really awful. Put the responsibility back on people and then if they break serious laws, lock 'em up. 8/10 of legal bullst and presiders not required. Benefits, simplify everything hugely, we are talking food tickets and that's about it. How difficult would it be to administer food tickets. Number per house. A database monkey could do that for a town, easy. Pay them next to nothing. Education. Get rid of the red tape, just lose it, lose the inspectors, ofsted, etc. It's all bullst, whilst we have a huge excess of staff, chuck the pay scales in the bin. Make the staff put in bids for their own jobs. If you don't like the price that it's been bid down to, get work elsewhere! Police... Since we have got rid of 8/10 of the law, the remaining 1/2 (;)) of the police can concentrate on catching those people who are breaking the remaining 2/10 of the law! Tax, get rid of all the bullst and allowances and put in a flat rate that encourages investment/success. When you have realised a profit figure for the government, THEN you may consider how you spend it. Since they won't be in charge of £billions of budget, they pay of the people won't even be questioned to reflect it. If you kick this ridiculous top heavy mess into touch, it will free up commerce, investment, entrepreneurs, encourage parasites to get a grip or f
k off, go somewhere like the EUSSR to go on the dole and leave us to a lower population density. (If you want unnecessary hospital services, get your chequebook out). I lack a romatic view of social democracy, because it's too expensive and doesn't work.
The path to success is not with more quangos, more initiatives, buzzwords and performance managers and skewed indicators of such, it's hacking the absolute s
t out of the system to make it cost effective and give the people what they want. Respect and freedom. Politicians have led themselves up a self-rewarding, self-interested path and we don't need most of them. It's about time we got a party to vote for who shared these views. Then we could see a bloody change from the corrupt and hugely expensive biscuit-w
king club that is the UK government. Whilst you have an excess of qualified staff (the uni's are churning them out) and a country that has raped it's own arse to ribbons financially, it seems utterly insane not to let people bid down for their public sector work. (A view I had when I was a part of public sector teaching). (Cue people blathering about quality vs cost) -(it's bulls
t). I understand that hacking the public sector about would hit GDP and therefore the £, BUT it would make our primary industries more viable (I would love to see those ex-commie labour MP's back in the pit cages). The UK seems to have some sort of arrogance to getting all the rewards for doing f
k all. This attitude stems from the top. It's time it was chopped about a bit. Edited by Tangent Police on Monday 2nd November 20:13
Interesting program on 'Public Sector Pay' on 'Tonight'(ITV) at the moment.
My god...only 5 mins into the program, and I'm not sure my rising BP will let me continue watching it.
WTF! The 'Director for Olympic Delivery' gets £489,000 of salary a year!!!!
My god...only 5 mins into the program, and I'm not sure my rising BP will let me continue watching it.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 2nd November 20:09
WTF! The 'Director for Olympic Delivery' gets £489,000 of salary a year!!!!
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 2nd November 20:12
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Interesting program on 'Public Sector Pay' on 'Tonight'(ITV) at the moment.
My god...only 5 mins into the program, and I'm not sure my rising BP will let me continue watching it.
WTF! The 'Director for Olympic Delivery' gets £489,000 of salary a year!!!!
Now the root of the problem i have with this is that the cost of things, if it were not "easy come easy go" tax money the spend wuld be checked better and cost cut or at least waste cut.My god...only 5 mins into the program, and I'm not sure my rising BP will let me continue watching it.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 2nd November 20:09
WTF! The 'Director for Olympic Delivery' gets £489,000 of salary a year!!!!
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 2nd November 20:12
If the provate sector conducted itself in the same way the public sector does there would be no profit and no jobs in short order, compulsory tax bails out past mistakes and poor spending habits while never teaching basic economics to those in charge.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff