More evidence that double digit wage rises are back :(

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That so many of them had the time or inclination to do so says more about the dire state of MP renumeration and the calibre of people it attracts to the profession than anything else IMO.

I am not sure increasing pay will necessarily lead to a higher calibre of candidates. Politics attracts a certain type of individual.

The people that could really make a difference either aren't inspired by the system enough to do it or could not be sufficiently rewarded/stimulated, to make the move, by a few thousand pounds extra.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Politics attracts a certain type of individual.

Which is half the problem.

We need to attract a much better type of individual.

When I look at the highly intelligent, competent and talented people in this country earning in the 80K to 250K range.... doctors, lawyers, senior managers, etc.... it's hard to see how we wouldn't be better served with people like them making important decisions for the country than with some ex-local councillor or Union official.

Of course, there's still the problem of getting them elected....

But being able to attract them to run in the first pace is at least a start.

The people that could really make a difference either aren't inspired by the system enough to do it or could not be sufficiently rewarded/stimulated, to make the move, by a few thousand pounds extra.

I'm not talking about a few thousand pounds.

In my opinion MP-s should earn well north of 100K if we're to attract the quality of person we need.

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't take an MP-s job for the kind of money currently on offer, or anything close to it.

I'd have to put my own money and time into getting elected, leave a secure career with good prospects for progression if I did, spend a lot of time away from family, have to run two households, commute weekly to London, and get pilloried in the press for whatever today's "hate your MP" campaign was all about.

And I'd have to take a pay cut to do it. Stuff that....

Now no matter what you think about MP's, I sincerely hope we'd be able to attract better candidates than me to want to be one.

So when MP pay is so dire that even people like me would laugh at the idea of becoming one, then something is badly wrong in my opinion.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am not sure increasing pay will necessarily lead to a higher calibre of candidates. Politics attracts a certain type of individual.

The higher calibre candidates we'd like are currently doing real jobs and unwilling to take a pay cut to become an MP.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

it's hard to see how we wouldn't be better served with people like them making important decisions for the country than with some ex-local councillor or Union official.

Of course, there's still the problem of getting them elected....

But being able to attract them to run in the first pace is at least a start.



I'm not talking about a few thousand pounds.

How easy is it these days for an ex local councillor or union official to actually get selected? How easy is it for a non graduate to get selected? How easy is it for non public school candidates to get selected for key positions?

Surely the idea of a democratically elected parliament is to reflect a broad church not just boffins, nerds and uber capitalists. I am not saying the input of these types isn't required but whether they are best placed to make balanced judgement is open for debate.

Free spirited single minded risk takers may do a lot of damage that isn't in the interest of wider society. They will often struggle to work through consensus and committee structures.

If we need to double pay the halve their numbers and screen them for narcissm.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

The higher calibre candidates we'd like are currently doing real jobs and unwilling to take a pay cut to become an MP.

I did make that point together with the fact that government is unlikely to float their boat.

N1AK

shortchanged wrote: »

Does this mean that Doctors, nurses, police, firefighters etc can expect a 4-6% pay rise in 2015?

I'm sure MPs would be happy to match their salaries to Doctors

MPs pay will have increased by 34% between 2002 and 2015. The median UK wage has already increased by 37% since 2002. That means that even if MPs got this pay rise and average UK wages didn't change for two years then MPs wages would have fallen compared to the UK average wage.

Factor in that MP benefits are being cut back very considerably in return for this pay rise, and have already been cut back in this window, and the commonly held view that MPs are constantly increasing their pay just doesn't match reality.

J_i_m

I think it's a matter of perspectives.

If you're some CEO of a large corporation of some kind with a suitably large retainer in excess of £100'000 a year plus lucrative fringe benefits then you may well consider an MP on £74'000 a year to be under paid.

However... if on the flip-side you just so happen to be Average Joe, be that a publicly employed nurse, teacher, police officer, soldier, fire-fighter etc or a privately employed engineer, mechanic, shop manager, assistant etc etc... on an salary of £20-35'000 a year (or rather more likely far far less) then you might be forgiven for concluding that a MP with a salary of comfortably double yours, expenses paid, an extremely generous pension scheme, second homes and invariable and numerous other lucrative employments alongside their appointments as MPs is not exactly hard up especially when in these austere times we're supposed "to be in it together".

If Average Joe isn't worth an 11% rise... then MPs certainly aren't.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But the thing that really gets my goat about it was all those tiny claims, for a plug, or a fuse, or something equally ridiculous.

How the hell did they have time to do that when they were supposed to be running the country?

I wouldn't dream of claiming for a cup of coffee, or a pack of biro pens, or whatever, as although I technically could in most cases the time it takes to type up the form is worth more to me than the few pence I'd get back.

That so many of them had the time or inclination to do so says more about the dire state of MP renumeration and the calibre of people it attracts to the profession than anything else IMO.

I expect most of them just get some lackey in their constituency office (funded by their expenses allowance) to sort through their receipts and fill in the claims forms for them, which is probably why some of the claims highlighted in the press were so stupid.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

J_i_m wrote: »

I think it's a matter of perspectives.

If you're some CEO of a large corporation of some kind with a suitably large retainer in excess of £100'000 a year plus lucrative fringe benefits then you may well consider an MP on £74'000 a year to be under paid.

The CEO-s of large corporations would be earning many times that figure.

80K to 120K is doctor, senior manager or lawyer money.

Talented and intelligent people with good real life experience, but not superstars of the business world by any stretch of the imagination.

CEO/MD/FD of larger national companies would start around the 300K mark and go up to many millions depending on size and complexity of business.

J_i_m

If anything though... you've just amplified my point.

Which may not have been your intention?