I am a big believer in the fairness of the courts and I certainly would not skip a single step in putting the guilty bastards inside.
I think I would make a very good member of the jury as well.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I think I would make a very good member of the jury as well.
Speaking as an engineer, I don't think you know how much useful professions like engineers and doctors get paid...a lot less than an MP put it that way.
we’ve got him this time
Not true, I'm in S/W engineering and £81k is the salary I would expect for a senior engineer or principal with around 15 years experience. Of course, different engineering disciplines have different scales. I agree junior doctors aren't paid that, but consultants start at £85k and I think salaried GPs range from 63k-95k.
By your rationale then we should have 2000 MPs. Your position that "we need loads because most are awful" betrays the limitations of the current system which, unfortuntely, I think is driven a lot by the relatively low pay. I also don't think we actually need 120 elected ministerial positions to be frank.You prefer having 175 MPs to pick from to having 350 MPs and I do think that's wrong, considering the number of feckwits there are, however much they're paid. I'm sure we will all have a different number in mind as ideal, but yours is too low for me.
I'm surprised anyone is putting the US forward as system we should copy to be honest. I wonder how much US politicians make out of their positions, and not just in salary, anyone know?
I would abolish the Lords tomorrow, and somewhat unusually would not replace it, but that might be going off at too much of a tangent.
I'm putting forward numbers, not the entire system. US politicans are paid around $170k. I believe they have the same issue to be honest. I used to work for a high tech company HQd with around 500 people and I reckon probably 1/2 of them were on more than $170k.
Do they get £10k of tax free expenses and a mortgage paid for on their 2nd home in London on top? Subsidised bars and restaurants? Or do they have sufficient time to take 2nd jobs earning £100ks on the side? You'd have to admit that a consultant is also probably more equivalent to a minister who earns into the 6 figures.
Also you'll have to trust me when I say that software engineers are an exception compared to most engineers.
You're arguing a completely different points now about expenses and second jobs because now you're saying MPs are OK to be paid less because they can engage in these extra activites. Should expenses be paid? Yes, its clearly not reasonable to expect a Scottish MP to pay to commute or rent/buy a second home just to attend Parliament. I also don't think MPs should be allowed to have second jobs, or at least nothing substantial. For example my job is full time, more than full time probably, but if I really wanted to, could I fit in some extra consulting hours in the evenings/weekends? Probably yes. I wouldn't have an objection to MPs being paid for doing some speaking engagements or possibly consulting on their area of expertise, but I don't think it should be allowed to be any significant extra time.
What engineering discipline are you in out of interest?
And by yours we should have 20? I don't agree with your position but you were making a good case, don't wreck it with silly exaggerations.
Im not arguing anything, I am telling you MPs are much better remunerated than nurses, most engineers and most doctors.
Mechanical, bit of electrical. Not that it matters, it's the same in civil. Oil and gas and software are the only really well paid engineers, and they still mostly earn less than an MP, many of whom only turn up about 20h a week, employ their family in their offices for spurious services etc etc.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about MPs' salaries by the way. In my view they should get £100k a year, travel expenses, 3 office staff (not family or friends) and no other expenses, no mortgage, no car, no 2nd jobs (unless they're actually worthwhile like doctors and nurses rather than consulting). Well paid, no funny shit, no grey areas.
I also wouldn't have Parliament in London and I'd buy properties they could stay in when they were attending Parliament.
Last edited:
Fair enough, all good points. I suppose my basic point is that I want our MPs to be drawn from the top 5% of the talent this country has to offer, and to get that you need to pay. If you don't, you won't and so we can't really complain if we get a bunch of idiots or rich Etonians.
But I don't think you do need to pay. You need status, a respectable salary, good working conditions, and people who want to make stuff better. There are loads of them in this country paid a lot less than the no mark halfwits in Parliament.
In my view, you're paying them not to be corrupt. If you earn enough to live well and you're still on the take then you've not a leg to stand on.
It's a pretty basic assumption that paying more will attract talent, works in the majority of businesses but I don't think it's as clear cut in something as the role of an MP. It's pretty clear that some jobs are more than about money, and with all the baggage of being an MP comes with it isn't an attractive proposition despite the salary.
Proportional representation probably will have a far more significant impact on the quality of politics and talent of politicians that come through than any pay rise.
There are already some 'high quality' people who are mps; they are not the ones who are in it for the money.
The ones who are in it for the money are already raking in millions on top of their 80k. Paying them 250k will not change that.
In my experience… many of the people who reach the top levels when it comes to business etc. are exactly the sort of people you would not want running a country.
It’s like how the % of CEO’s that display psychopathic behaviour is far, far higher than what you’d get in the general population. There are plenty of more talented people who don’t lack in integrity or empathy that earn less.
The US also has a massive state government system and bear in mind many of those are bigger alone than the UK. Its not something you can compare like for like.
Oh just feck off:
Well, yes, but it suggests that a powerful media outlet is being used as a sales pitch platform by a disgraced former minister. Which isn't so good.
Don't know what all the fuss is about. JRM is an entitled individual. So as far as he is concerned, he does not think that he has done anything wrong.
The MPs wage is more than 95% of people in the UK earn.
They should simply be barred from second jobs. Not rewarded with higher pay because of their corruption.
A very optimistic and generous take on Starmers lack of vision. He has done nothing, has no ideas, backtracks on all his pledges.
His only saving grace is that he is less corrupt than Boris Johnson and his government.
Totally agree.
Hey look if you want to pay headteachers in a state school twice as much as people voting on education policy then crack on but your gonna get the same mess ...
I've no issues with a good headteacher getting over 160k but I don't think they should have to take a 50% paycut to bring their experience to parliament
Did anyone listen to James O’Brien on Friday (without an argument about his credentials)? With some callers they came up with what he called ‘The O’Brien Memorandum’ which had three factors should MPs have a 2nd job:
There should be an independent ‘Conflict of Interests Panel’ that would hear the case for any second job and decide if it constituted a conflict of interest.- For any hour of paid secondary employment they would be committed to an hour of unpaid charitable work in their constituency (therefor limiting the hours they could commit to)
- Any MP would have a mandatory, openly accessible ‘billable hours’ timesheets. If £1000ph lawyers use them then MPs can too!
Those are not the people that get elected though. We voters tend to vote for the shinier, glossier and more populistic or presentable versions of politicians. And that applies everywhere across the spectrum.
Not sure about the practicality and value of the second point but the others seem pretty reasonable (with the caveat who appoints the conflict of interest panel?)
I generally agree with your POV. But let's make a distinction between senior civil servants and politicians. Increasing the wage of MPs will not improve the quality of people in politics because idiots keep voting for idiots.
Look at our government. How many cabinet ministers are there on merit? Sunak and Javid excelled in their previous professions but most are there put of nepotism. That's not a problem of wage.
My experience has been paying someone more doesn't stop them from being greedy.
I would imagine it would have to be a cross-party panel with an odd number and I would also add the need for a 2/3s majority for acceptance of an application for a 2nd job.
Possibly... I think id prefer such a panel created an independent regulator to do the job though if that could be achieved
The people are heavily influenced by the media. Which is heavily influenced by the same corrupt politicians in bed with media moguls. It's cyclical.
People are also influenced by the education system which is massively impacted by investment/ structure or lack thereof.
These of course are only 2 variables. But it is not a functioning or healthy system. Especially when combined with first past the post politics.
Where are headteachers getting paid £160k? L43 is just under £118k per annum. I assume in private schools?
Irrespective, £80k a year, plus generous expenses is a very good salary (I understand that, compared to the rarified circles in which you move Sun, this may seem a paltry amount).
It is not excessive and that's good...it's not a job that should support opulence. The meritocracy in Parliament you seek is not blocked by that salary level.
Over 150 headteachers were paid in excess of 150k last year in state schools .... presumably because they got good results and achieved tough targets in turning around schools... good on them.
I'd be happy to pay mps more if it helped to get a better quality of person and better results
And yeah 80k would be a hell of a paycut though most of my renumeration is again based on results
Of course it would be Sun, 'cos you get things done. Social workers and Nurses on £40k a year just gravitate there due to being lower quality people.
Can you cite regarding headteachers on over £150k year in state schools please?
Sure... perhaps my ability to use Google and do things for myself is why I earn the big bucks
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...alary-school-academy-bosses-jumps-20-per-cent
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ool-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
£280 to £290k there so just three and half times an mp... not bad with a final salary pension and 6 weeks off in the summer... earning even more than the pm I believe https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-including-one-260k-ordered-justify-it.html
Over 1700 teachers on over 100k apparently
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1340525/head-teacher-salary-uk-earn-over-200k
But sure 80k is enough to pay somebody and expect the best and brightest to be making the decisions that impact all our lives
Last edited: