Pay rise for MPs

mex said:
If the MP's deserve their pay rise as they are underpaid for the job they do, are then nurses, firemen, police officers and teachers fairly paid?
Click to expand...
People are not paid a wage based upon 'fairness' or even utility to society, but based upon what is the market rate for the skillset and abilities required to perform the job to a satisfactory degree.
Most public services manage to hire suitably capable staff based upon their current salary scales, because they are jobs many people are naturally inclined to want to do, regardless of pay structure.

The skills required to be a good politician - good judgment, courage under challenging situations, excellent communication skills, a certain degree of cunning - are all much sought after in the private sector, where salaries are much higher. As a result, the only people entering politics will be;
1. The wealthy, born into a life of privilege but with a sense of duty to serve (the Eton ethos)
2. The wealthy, with no useful skills to society, who enter politics as something to do since the family won't let them anywhere near the family business
3. The unscrupulous, who seek to use politics as a means to feather their own nest.

Most normal people will decide that the lifestyle attached to a career in politics isn't adequately compensated by the salary, and stay well clear. I certainly wouldn't be an MP for that kind of money, let alone be a cabinet minister.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
People are not paid a wage based upon 'fairness' or even utility to society, but based upon what is the market rate for the skillset and abilities required to perform the job to a satisfactory degree.
Most public services manage to hire suitably capable staff based upon their current salary scales, because they are jobs many people are naturally inclined to want to do, regardless of pay structure.

The skills required to be a good politician - good judgment, courage under challenging situations, excellent communication skills, a certain degree of cunning - are all much sought after in the private sector, where salaries are much higher. As a result, the only people entering politics will be;
1. The wealthy, born into a life of privilege but with a sense of duty to serve (the Eton ethos)
2. The wealthy, with no useful skills to society, who enter politics as something to do since the family won't let them anywhere near the family business
3. The unscrupulous, who seek to use politics as a means to feather their own nest.

Most normal people will decide that the lifestyle attached to a career in politics isn't adequately compensated by the salary, and stay well clear. I certainly wouldn't be an MP for that kind of money, let alone be a cabinet minister.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I think the above was very well put. I would however, suggest there are more than just the 3 categories of reasons to become an MP. One is those who seek power for the sake of power & those who see it as fulfilling some form of self importance. There are ( or used to be) those who wanted to be MP's because they wanted to make this country a better place to live in.
James
 
mex said:
If the MP's deserve their pay rise as they are underpaid for the job they do, are then nurses, firemen, police officers and teachers fairly paid ? or is the offer of <1% reflective of their duties, after all they are either saving,protecting or educating us as opposed to milking us like the asreholes that turn up now and again at Westminster?
Click to expand...

Without politicians there would not be any state funded nurses, firemen, police officers or teachers and anyone in any of the professions can become an MP if they have the talents it takes to win a in a democratic election.

But then Matrons can earn nearly as much as MPs so why bother with all the hassle?
 
Last edited:
Plenty of folk out there getting paid more than they are worth :)

I say grab all you can..
 
Llamaman said:
People are not paid a wage based upon 'fairness' or even utility to society, but based upon what is the market rate for the skillset and abilities required to perform the job to a satisfactory degree.
Most public services manage to hire suitably capable staff based upon their current salary scales, because they are jobs many people are naturally inclined to want to do, regardless of pay structure.

The skills required to be a good politician - good judgment, courage under challenging situations, excellent communication skills, a certain degree of cunning - are all much sought after in the private sector, where salaries are much higher. As a result, the only people entering politics will be;
1. The wealthy, born into a life of privilege but with a sense of duty to serve (the Eton ethos)
2. The wealthy, with no useful skills to society, who enter politics as something to do since the family won't let them anywhere near the family business
3. The unscrupulous, who seek to use politics as a means to feather their own nest.

Most normal people will decide that the lifestyle attached to a career in politics isn't adequately compensated by the salary, and stay well clear. I certainly wouldn't be an MP for that kind of money, let alone be a cabinet minister.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are are not paid upon fairness, however,unlike the MP's they do not get to vito their own payrise ( a payrise way above inflation and considerably more than the vast majority of payrises in relation to anyone else and quite obscene considering the cuts in funding to public services), lets not forget the prime ministers own words not that long ago " we are all in this together".

Is there a good politician in the house? I am struggling to think of one, Tony Benn was, but none I fancy in there now from any of the parties.
 
mex said:
unlike the MP's they do not get to vito their own payrise
Click to expand...
But MPs pay is now independently set, as was demanded after the expenses scandal.
People need to make up their mind about what they want;
a. MPs deciding their own pay, and being held politically accountable for that
b. MPs being kept well clear of the decision, but therefore also being unaccountable

I, personally, prefer (b). Why? Because otherwise we will get a race to the bottom, as more wealthy MPs slash their own salaries to boost their popularity, thus making it impossible for those without access to a Family Trust Fund to make a career out of politics. I would rather the political debate focused on the policy decisions that affect millions of people and amount to £billions in cost, not the pay settlement of just 650 people with a budget impact of a few £million. It's a distraction from the real business of parliament.

Exercising a veto to make a political point sets a dangerous precedent for the House to interfere in it's own remuneration settlements.
 
mex said:
Is there a good politician in the house? I am struggling to think of one, Tony Benn was, but none I fancy in there now from any of the parties.
Click to expand...
Justine Greening is quite fanciable, IMO.

Politically, I most frequently find myself in agreement with Frank Field (Labour) and David Davis (Conservative). Tony Benn was certainly a true friend of democracy, and like many of the awkward squad, when he was right, he was very right, but when he was wrong, he was very wrong. The same could be said of Tam Dalyell, who asked a question in the 1970s which still hasn't been answered, despite two referrendums and a new parliament in Holyrood in the meantime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top