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.
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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:14,
archived)
£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.
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.)
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:51,
archived)
This
If 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.
(SnowyTheWereRabbitthe Leporid from Hell,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:28,
archived)
The comparison with any vaguely managerial position makes no sense either
because 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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:47,
archived)
You could argue that if you care enough to be a politician then you shouldn't
be too bothered about how much you get paid for it. Like monks. ;)
whether 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.
(SnowyTheWereRabbitthe Leporid from Hell,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:25,
archived)
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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
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.
(SnowyTheWereRabbitthe Leporid from Hell,
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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:12,
archived)
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.
I 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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:40,
archived)
If it's true that they could be earning 3 to 5 times more elsewhere
then 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.
(_Felix's school of dance and occult sciences,
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.
This makes me feel sorry for all those born with a silver spoon in their mouths for they will never taste such delectable freedom
also woo :)
(hekim66 ɐʇƐ𐐒 ʞɔnℲ uooW,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:00,
archived)
no idea who it is; but......
its a bloody good anim!
(Zank FrappaWho let the lefties in?,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:21,
archived)
Spot...
...on!
(Harry WebshiterSpiggley biggley bog.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:30,
archived)
I loved him in 'The Mummy'
(AtatatatariIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIII,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:38,
archived)
This is great
(Ham o' Shatner-.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:52,
archived)
Ha ha nice.
He should really be a comedy script writer. I mean saying there was no financial gain or incentive paid to ATOS for striking the disabled off their benefits when it turns out there was afterall. Ha ha and the boss of ATOS got a £1m bonus. ha ha ha oh mercy, then gives them credit as sponsors to the paralympics without them having to actually pay for the privilage. Hilarious stuff! Seriously I hope that vile excuse for a human being gets a slow painful cancer so he can feel, see and smell his own body rot before he eventually carks it.
(Captn Hood-Butteris not dead yet.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:48,
archived)
very good Elvis
I was actually going to do a Smug bastard one this morning, but went for the 'Ian dunked in shit' option instead.
Unfortunately, the main Richard Briers scene is a sight gag that should only last a few seconds, but goes on for about 2 minutes. Painfully overplayed. :(
however on closer inspection, her grip on those guns is rubbish, with the kickback from the MP5 the way she's holding them they would end up flying out of her hands.
(Thor_sonofodinhas done things, terrible things on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 14:30,
archived)
Definitely the one in her left hand, unless she was photographed in the process of releasing the safety catch?
Does the MP5 have variable rate of fire? She could be switching to a 3 round burst to conserve ammunition. A quick look at the Wiki suggests this is the case.
I am developing an unhealthy dislike for flatmate Anna. I hope she fails her finals and ends up stocking shelves at Poundland for the rest of her miserable life. This is my first ever post to B3ta so please be gentle - no blood, no bruising please.
(Thor_sonofodinhas done things, terrible things on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 10:53,
archived)
Oh yes
Thought I was just a sick perv all on my own.
(robneymcplumspiced up his life on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 10:54,
archived)
oh, Samantha Bond is full of would
(Joe Scaramangawith a G-double-O-D vibration,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 11:49,
archived)
She will be if I ever meet her.
(Je suis un vagabondis an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:13,
archived)
Because you have a wooden penis?
(SpleepShit, or get off the internet.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:28,
archived)
I wouldn't know
(robneymcplumspiced up his life on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:29,
archived)
Don't hate me 'cos I'm beautiful.
(Je suis un vagabondis an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:30,
archived)
Can I fuck you 'cause you're ugly?
Hang on, this is all going wrong.
(SpleepShit, or get off the internet.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:36,
archived)
They all say that. They all say that.
*sad face sad face*
(Je suis un vagabondis an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:56,
archived)
Yes, he has...
I've been picking splinters out of my arse for days.
(Harry WebshiterSpiggley biggley bog.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 13:22,
archived)
Bell-end
Living with HER and he hasn't got tops OR fingers? Puff.
(robneymcplumspiced up his life on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 10:54,
archived)
he has hooked up a webcam in her room and the shower though.
(Thor_sonofodinhas done things, terrible things on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 10:59,
archived)
Atta boy
My opinion is slightly changed of the dough faced cunt.
(robneymcplumspiced up his life on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 11:28,
archived)
what I don't get
is tech companies who are happy to insult their potential customers.
Or do they know that self-respecting nerds wouldn't touch their broadband with a ten foot pole?
Vodafone did one recently with a nerdy guy buying a new phone then almost crying and saying "I have't had a girlfriend for three years"
I don't understand the logic
(Joe Scaramangawith a G-double-O-D vibration,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 11:51,
archived)
I think its the opposite
The 'un'nerd people see the 'nerds' in the adverts, relate to the stereotype of them and think 'if they use it, it must be good' although, as you say, I wouldnt have vodafone or BT if you gave it me for free.
(robneymcplumspiced up his life on,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:08,
archived)
It's probably knowing/ postmodern/ post-ironic/ some other shit that trendy advertising execs think will appeal to THE KIDS
(drimblehe'd been white, he'd been black,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:08,
archived)
"Advertising is the sound of a stick being rattled in a trough" - George Orwell
(Je suis un vagabondis an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:15,
archived)
Similarly Wonga advertise old biddies borrowing from them
An old biddy couldn't touch them with a barge pole if she wanted to.
(edjogsCollared doves are shit.,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 13:00,
archived)
Most old biddies keep their money in a shoebox in the wardrobe or under the mattress.