Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I mean what the fuck do they actually do, exactly?
2. they get to vote on their pay increases
£250,000 a year including bonuses.
basic MP salary is like £67k.
I mean what has cunt potato Iain Duncan Smith done to deserve the probably disgusting amounts of money he has, for example?
but in his case: he married into it
IDS earns £134k combined ministerial and MP salary, which given, you know, it involves running a Government Department, I'd say is about right.
bit tipsy, sorry
as to the rest of the money......well they're not actually obliged to turn up for work, so i guess they have time to work out how to make it up to 250k :D
I dunno, what ARE these bonuses?
just read it somewhere on a local labour pamphlet
and far above the national average etc etc
but it's pretty middling when you look at the money that comes out of certain professions or levels of the corporate sector that have comparable levels of responsibility
For secondary school headteachers.
I really do not understand this form of argument....I mean I understand it at the most crude arithmetic base level of money.
I also understand that such a shallow society that measures and compares success by big your wodge is, or how many big german cars you have, sometimes contributes to some peoples job reward
BUT , what greater job satisfaction can there be? What greater honour could there be? Than deciding on peoples futures? Deciding on their future misery or joy, or life or death?
Getting to try to right the wrongs that you see, in the way that you think it should be done? the rest of us are festering frustraedly whenever we hear something mind fucking on the news....THEY can do something about it.
Another aspect is that they are virtually guarenteed a job for at least 5 years (you would have to do something criminal or vastly immoral to get dismissed)......no one else has this sort of assurance......no one else has this sort of future society determination....IT also comes with a honorific title.....you are not obliged to keep to certain hours or be in a particular place at a particular time.....IF you do not want to make a difference it seems like a relatively simple job for that financial recompence.
Above all else, sometimes you will make mistakes and potentially what you do in your job may fuck up peoples lives seriously.....there is not the fall out for such consequences in these jobs as there might be n many other jobs.
Its almost as if the argument that you use (which does work on an artithmetic and base level) totally discounts any other aspect of jobs......makes working and being an mp sound like prostitution....just in it for the money.
Im having a go at that extant argument.....because it is portrayed and relayed in the media as a simplistic base arithmetic equation.
and I would expect that people on £67k (supposedly for their ability to understand nuanced and complex situations and discuss these reasonably) and bbc interviewers (again on a huge wack)
should NOT discuss things in the most base and simplistic arithmetic terms............you could get someone on minimum wage to discuss in those terms
the question was, "why do MPs get paid so much?"
to which I replied [paraphrased], "they don't, compared to comparable positions with a similar level of authority across different sectors"
which is absolutely true. i'm not talking about job satisfaction or guaranteed employment for five years or whatever. i'm just attempting to answer a question.
and I know that you are merely conveying the commonly extant argument that we will often hear on media......so I have no problem with you bringing that up, as it gives the opportunity to counter the extant argument (I realise that you do not even necessarily support the extant argument fully......but you must also understand that it is my duty to counter the extant argument because I find that extant argument to be flawed.....and it is oft repeated, so it does Need countering at ecery opportunity)
Reacting in accordance to populist news stories to pass laws that remove power and wealth from the people and into international finance and trade.
Why are they paid so much? By saying if they aren't rich only out of touch poshos would be able to do it which is circular thinking but oh well. Also traditional ideas of respectable office, lot of work, specialised positions etc must feed into it somewhere. And corporate backhanders, public appearances etc.
Some don't pull their weight, but the majority work long weeks and working days.
I don't think they should be paid more particularly, but most could/did earn more outside of politics.
normally the employers get to choose employees wages, bizarrely in this case, the employees get to choose.....because they have power over us and the country so they can.
a lot of people have meetings.
probably get paid too much because they have 2nd/3rd/4th jobs on top of the job they do as an MP, this should be out-lawed if you going to be an MP, be an MP and focus all your energy on living up to the promises people voted for you for.
spouting their 'career politician' mumbo jumbo.
but taking this kind of high paid, largely meaningless corporate work just seems really really suspect.
think they should spend their weekends working in a call centre.
Practising a few days as a barrister (and one who still does a bit of dentistry!) Which doesn't bother me. Would definitely stop them taking up directorships and consulting though.
if the pay was lower, the 'best' candidates would be put off when they could earn so much more elsewhere. Which is sort of total bollocks because a) it's meant to be a public service thing b) it's not like all MPs got significantly better en masse when pay was put up in the 90s c) if it is a response to the rise in executive pay, maybe that's something they ought to be bringing under control.
I think there has been a psychological shift from 'this is what we're owed for representing our constituents' to 'this is what we're owed for running the country'. The one thing I will say is that the recent hike was in exchange for scrapping a pretty outrageous chunk of benefits, so was more justified than most raises in the last 20 years.
except that I need to add that the counter to this being 'more justified'
not really....just keeping the balance by making up for removing the 'hidden benefits' would be justified, if it were not for the fact that us realising the sheer fucking gall and inherent dishonesty of the widespread hidden benefits (i.e. cheating, which they said wasnt that bad cos everyone (mps) were doing it.......although I'd like to excuse all the John Manns of parliament who was honourable despite the craveness that was apparently 'the norm)
so yeah....essentially by us all finding out how 'economic with the truth' that they were...the fact that they acted like (one law for them one for the rest) kind of proved that they had been 'bad' employees of the state and were therefore demonstably not been deserving of the overall recompense that they recieved in the first place.
We live in a society that's crippled by the totally flawed notion that people who are motivated by money are the people who are best able to make decisions because their success at making money proves how capable they are
you don't really want a situation like with unpaid internships though do you? where it's only the kids of the wealthy that can afford to support themselves to do the job
then you are unfit to decide or discuss the countries future
Which meant it was a hobby for the idle rich so getting paid is supposed to mean it's open to everybody.
As for the amount - would you be an MP for £20k a year? As others have said it need to be competitive with other jobs and I didn't think it's *that* excessive although it's not badly paid by any standards.
If we link mps wages to others then maybe we give them double. £47,528.
There, perfect. I've come up with a mechanism, that is clear, AND linked to US. plus it is plenty enough. Secretarial services will be supplied by both parliament (in westminster and gov offices) and by party (for party work) necessary travel expenses will be reimbursed....or free public transport pass (transport companies can suck it up...its the gov that gives em the licence to practice...mps can pay for upgrades to 1st class (or their party can)
But not a simple doubling
I'd go for national average + £30k
That way, in order to accommodate an 11% pay rise they would have to increase the national average by 11% instead of merely 5.5%
as long as it is simple, and modest and clear.
Think it's about right tbh. It's the ones who use their position for other business interests that we need to watch for
the committee (or whatever they are) that regulates MP and ex-MP's careers is pretty useless.
but that really isn't saying anything.