The current annual salary for an MP is £65,738. In addition, MPs receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.
69% of MPs say they are underpaid.
You can have 14k and get ' T ' fuck.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 15:44,
archived)
69% of MPs say they are underpaid.
You can have 14k and get ' T ' fuck.
I never understand this argument...They could all be earning 3-5 times that in the private sector.
(
JebediahSpringfield,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 15:53,
archived)
Heh, this assumes they are fit to work in the private sector.
(
Smallbrainfield,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 15:57,
archived)
Assuming their position in the private sectorwasn't stacking shelves
(
fuscous,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:05,
archived)
How can the correct wage for a politician be calculated?I mean we could just make them compete for the most favourable contract with anybody who would employ them as a politician, but that would result in zero politicians (which might be the real idea behind the argument).
I'm also confused by the 69% figure, because I thought they decided their wages themselves, by voting about it.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:14,
archived)
I'm also confused by the 69% figure, because I thought they decided their wages themselves, by voting about it.
£65,738 -is a lot of money Plus all the perks and the pension - It is a lot of money. You can have a decent life on £65k. Plus they go off and get a REALLY decent job after and they've set up the old boys next work already.
That's more than the joint incomes most people on b3ta will have. All because we like to colour in.
The perks are the main gripe.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:25,
archived)
That's more than the joint incomes most people on b3ta will have. All because we like to colour in.
The perks are the main gripe.
I think it works like this:Politicians are chosen by the public.
Politicians work for the public.
Politicians represent the public.
Therefore politicians are self-employed and are their own clients, and those clients determine their wages.
Edit: it seems IPSA set the pay level, since 2010. How they decide, I don't know. (That stuff about consulting "certain bodies" only seems to apply to expenses.)
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:51,
archived)
Politicians work for the public.
Politicians represent the public.
Therefore politicians are self-employed and are their own clients, and those clients determine their wages.
Edit: it seems IPSA set the pay level, since 2010. How they decide, I don't know. (That stuff about consulting "certain bodies" only seems to apply to expenses.)
ThisIf you want people who are top professionals, well-educated, and could hold top jobs in the private sector, £65,738 and work paying for your accommodation when you're away for work is not a lot.
That's less than senior Police, Teachers, NHS staff, Civil Servants.... and it's certainly less than a lot of lawyers, business-people, etc.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:28,
archived)
That's less than senior Police, Teachers, NHS staff, Civil Servants.... and it's certainly less than a lot of lawyers, business-people, etc.
The comparison with any vaguely managerial position makes no sense eitherbecause it assumes that they are doing a valuable job. You could make up a spurious senior managerial type of position anywhere - in a donkey sanctuary, say, or a baked potato stall - and assert that the nature of the job means that the person deserves to be paid an amount comparable to the CEO of Poundland. There is no evidence to support "deserves" part of the assertion, only the "comparable" part.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:47,
archived)
You could argue that if you care enough to be a politician then you shouldn'tbe too bothered about how much you get paid for it. Like monks. ;)
( Smallbrainfield,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:10,
archived)
Doesn't matterwhether it's 'deserves' or 'comparable', ultimately. People need money to pay for things. This is how society works. If you pay more money, more people are likely to be interested in a job, therefore you hopefully get better people into it.
We COULD, of course, pay all MPs the minimum wage and no expenses. If you think that's going to help change the fact that Parliament is dominated by the wealthy, though, you've got things back to front.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:25,
archived)
We COULD, of course, pay all MPs the minimum wage and no expenses. If you think that's going to help change the fact that Parliament is dominated by the wealthy, though, you've got things back to front.
How good should an MP be?They could be paid millions, and would then be great, whatever that means in the context of being an MP.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:56,
archived)
*sigh*Okay, we'll just do everything in our power to try and make sure they're shit then. You're right. That will solve things. I can't believe I didn't see it until now.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:06,
archived)
Don't be absurd.That's a terrible suggestion.
Really what should happen is that interested parties should vote on pay plans, like shareholders do. The problem with this is that the entire population are roped into being shareholders whether they like it or not, and as a result are mostly not all that interested.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:12,
archived)
Really what should happen is that interested parties should vote on pay plans, like shareholders do. The problem with this is that the entire population are roped into being shareholders whether they like it or not, and as a result are mostly not all that interested.
Errr ...Shareholders don't vote on pay plans except in the absolute broadest sense.
Shareholders vote directly for the board of directors who then set pay policy, including their own pay. In this regard the analogy with MPs and voters is quite apt.
And £65,000 plus expenses is really not that much.
(Shareholders vote directly for the board of directors who then set pay policy, including their own pay. In this regard the analogy with MPs and voters is quite apt.
And £65,000 plus expenses is really not that much.
Ghoti Fingers,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:20,
archived)
Well, I'm not sure about that, FWIWI googled it and found Say on Pay, something about Vince Cable proposing binding shareholder votes back in June, and also there was something from ABC news which had the quote "The board of directors, who determine CEO pay, don't have to listen to the shareholder vote but most of them are listening" which is taking too long to load.
The "£65,000 is really not that much" thing means you're comparing MPs to something - to senior managers, presumably - but why? It's many multiples what a shelf stacker makes, but those people still have to be capable of making decisions; how do we know they'd be significant failures as MPs? Then again, perhaps film stars are a better comparison, and what we really need are extremely rare and charismatic people who can only be attracted by paying millions. On the other hand a three-inch square plank of wood costs £10 and you only have to pay for it once, and it may also do a perfectly fine job as an MP. These possibilities are all untested, and instead we just assume that managers are the correct comparison, based on nothing at all.
Having said that, I think they weren't always paid a salary. Not until 1911, it seems. Those must have been dark days of abysmal leadership.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:40,
archived)
The "£65,000 is really not that much" thing means you're comparing MPs to something - to senior managers, presumably - but why? It's many multiples what a shelf stacker makes, but those people still have to be capable of making decisions; how do we know they'd be significant failures as MPs? Then again, perhaps film stars are a better comparison, and what we really need are extremely rare and charismatic people who can only be attracted by paying millions. On the other hand a three-inch square plank of wood costs £10 and you only have to pay for it once, and it may also do a perfectly fine job as an MP. These possibilities are all untested, and instead we just assume that managers are the correct comparison, based on nothing at all.
Having said that, I think they weren't always paid a salary. Not until 1911, it seems. Those must have been dark days of abysmal leadership.
I'd like to thinkthat they are not in it for the money.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 19:23,
archived)
If it's true that they could be earning 3 to 5 times more elsewherethen presumably they aren't in it for the money. Yet if it's true that paying them more attracts better choices of candidates, then they are in it for the money. The only logical conclusion of all this must be that they're in it for some of the money. Like a third to a fifth of the money.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 19:27,
archived)
I don't begrudge them a decent salary,but this argument that you have to incentivise difficult or important work just doesn't add up. I know plenty of people who have taken pay cuts to do what they wanted. Job satisfaction is priceless. The amount of power and influence MPs have over society has to count for something.
edit: although
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/senior-civil-servants-pay-ranges
you can earn 4 times as much in the Civil Service. I guess they can't help but compare themselves to some of the folks they work with day in, day out.
(edit: although
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/senior-civil-servants-pay-ranges
you can earn 4 times as much in the Civil Service. I guess they can't help but compare themselves to some of the folks they work with day in, day out.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 19:45,
archived)
how do you apply to be an MP's mistress?
Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:03,
archived)
now that i can do Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:15,
archived)
Teresa May, on the other hand, might be up for it(Google that if you want, but may be a tad NSFW)
( Ghoti Fingers,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:16,
archived)