Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw more scum politicians

whitegoods_engineer

It seems that poor Malcolm Rifkind struggles on his paltry £67000 a year salary so he flogs access to contacts as a lucrative sideline. Apparently this is justified by him on the basis that, as a lawyer, he could earn much more outside the commons. WE'LL FLAMING WELL GO AND BECOME A LAWYER THEN!

Same with Jack Straw. These elitist insular Westminster bubble shysters haven't got a clue about the real world of ordinary working people.

Shame on them! Anybody working for a company would be done for gross misconduct if found using their contacts or privileges during their employment for personal gain.

It almost seems to be par for the course in politics.

Hilariously, they're currently interviewing Jeffrey Archer on BBC breakfast about standards in politics??

Couldn't make it up!

JReacher1

It won't be popular but MP's are very underpaid. £67k is obviously a very good salary for the people who frequent these boards but in reality these people could earn many times that money in the private sector.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

It won't be popular but MP's are very underpaid. £67k is obviously a very good salary for the people who frequent these boards but in reality these people could earn many times that money in the private sector.

It is, however, their choice to go into politics.

I don't doubt there are many people in jobs that pay a lot less than they could get in other forms of employment. People don't always choose a job to maximise income and they should not start whining about their salaries, if they choose a lower paying job.

Of course, we could afford to pay MP's more if there weren't so many of them.

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

It is, however, their choice to go into politics.

I don't doubt there are many people in jobs that pay a lot less than they could get in other forms of employment. People don't always choose a job to maximise income and they should not start whining about their salaries, if they choose a lower paying job.

Of course, we could afford to pay MP's more if there weren't so many of them.

I prefer MP's to have real world experience.

It is unreasonable to expect someone who had worked as a lawyer, manager, chief exec, director etc. on a salary well in excess of £200k to change their standard of living as a result of moving into politics and massively reducing their income.

The current rules allow MP's to supplement their income and this encourages better candidates to be MP's.

It's an issue that will never get support as the majority of people in the UK earn less than £67K so see it as a fortune.

Personally I couldn't afford to become an MP on that salary. My wife would kill me!

maninthestreet

JReacher1 wrote: »

It won't be popular but MP's are very underpaid. £67k is obviously a very good salary for the people who frequent these boards but in reality these people could earn many times that money in the private sector.

It's not as if they have trouble finding people who want to be an MP is it? Each vacancy is over subscribed, and they have to have vote every 5 years to see who gets to be an MP.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

I prefer MP's to have real world experience.

It is unreasonable to expect someone who had worked as a lawyer, manager, chief exec, director etc. on a salary well in excess of £200k to change their standard of living as a result of moving into politics and massively reducing their income.

The current rules allow MP's to supplement their income and this encourages better candidates to be MP's.

It's an issue that will never get support as the majority of people in the UK earn less than £67K so see it as a fortune.

Personally I couldn't afford to become an MP on that salary. My wife would kill me!

None of that alters the fact that it's their choice.

They know what the salary is and the permissible ways to enhance it.

There is no excuse for breaking the rules just because they could earn more elsewhere.

Would you say that a doctor who gives up medicine and goes to work in a supermarket is entitled to steal food because he could earn more than the supermarket are paying him is he were still a doctor?

JReacher1

maninthestreet wrote: »

It's not as if they have trouble finding people who want to be an MP is it? Each vacancy is over subscribed, and they have to have vote every 5 years to see who gets to be an MP.

A lot of candidates for a vacancy does not mean a lot of good candidates.

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

Would you say that a doctor who gives up medicine and goes to work in a supermarket is entitled to steal food because he could earn more than the supermarket are paying him is he were still a doctor?

No I wouldn't say that.

However knowing your history of editing my posts I wouldn't be surprised if in a few posts I am meant to have said that

Although a better example for you would be this doctor at the supermarket gets paid £30k a year by pzifser to try and pursade the supermarket to sell their drugs.

bod1467

JReacher1 wrote: »

A lot of candidates for a vacancy does not mean a lot of good candidates.

Someone having been voted in as an MP does not make them a good MP.

home_alone

His other income said to be over £800K over the last five years does help a bit no food bank visits from him I would imagine. The answer would be to get rid of all politicians except one and we could put a tail on him or bug him much easier and then channel 4 could devote its time to following the royals, Andrew in particular.

JReacher1

home_alone wrote: »

His other income said to be over £800K over the last five years does help a bit no food bank visits from him I would imagine.

Even without the £800k I would hope nobody earning £67k would be going to a food bank....