Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

....... EDIT - fat fingers on my part

Edited December 13, 2013 by drat01

[chrisp65]

you get what you pay for and politicians are set for an 11% rise

 

using the same criteria, how much 'should' a nurse earn, or a soldier on active service, or a teacher

 

Nobody has to be a politician, if it's too tough and not enough money I'm more than willing to stand in for one of them for 12 months whilst they look for something else more suitable - I presume I'll be allowed to keep my current job and stay in central london hotels when I've worked late and not have to pay for travel, heating or eating?

[drat01]

 

Most people seem to want MPs to wear a hair shirt, prostrate themselves before a vengeful public and do a very responsible job for a relatively modest salary given the role, instead of having an easier and better remunerated life in the private sector.

As with most things in life you get what you pay for, unless people want a HoC stuffed with people so rich they don't need the income anyway which seems a bit 18th century (although admittedly there are already plenty of those on both sides of the House).

 

Edit: Sorry initial comment sounded somewhat harsh!

 

When the people of the UK keep getting hit by quite vindictive cuts and then hear multi millionaire MP's bleating on about how we are all in this together then to see them grant themselves quite a significant pay raise on top of what is way above the average salary (plus many perks), there will be a general feeling of "this is not cricket".

 

To talk about "modest" salary certainly shows a lack of understanding as to what the real life is here in the UK

 

[Risso]

I think the key word was "relatively" modest.  Put it this way Drat, would you take the pay cut to be an MP?!

[drat01]

I think the key word was "relatively" modest.  Put it this way Drat, would you take the pay cut to be an MP?!

Would you Mart? (and pay tax :-) )

 

Even the word relatively does not make it a modest salary at all, especially given the "package" that goes with it. As for doing the job, I would have no desire whatsoever to do that job as I think that with the exception a very very small minority the intentions of most in politics (and that includes local as well as national) are there for self serving reasons rather than in a sense of public well doing. The thought of working in that sort of environment is not one that I would personally find any sort of satisfaction from doing

[Awol]

 

 

Most people seem to want MPs to wear a hair shirt, prostrate themselves before a vengeful public and do a very responsible job for a relatively modest salary given the role, instead of having an easier and better remunerated life in the private sector.

As with most things in life you get what you pay for, unless people want a HoC stuffed with people so rich they don't need the income anyway which seems a bit 18th century (although admittedly there are already plenty of those on both sides of the House).

 

Edit: Sorry initial comment sounded somewhat harsh!

 

When the people of the UK keep getting hit by quite vindictive cuts and then hear multi millionaire MP's bleating on about how we are all in this together then to see them grant themselves quite a significant pay raise on top of what is way above the average salary (plus many perks), there will be a general feeling of "this is not cricket".

 

To talk about "modest" salary certainly shows a lack of understanding as to what the real life is here in the UK

 

 

Okay, point of fact:  MP's have not granted themselves a salary increase, that was done by an independent body entirely beyond their control, further they have no mechanism to actually reject those conclusions. This was done specifically to prevent MPs being able to vote on their own pay.

 

On the "vindictive cuts" stuff the government is clearly trying to shrink the size of the state and therefore its cost. That is certainly an ideological viewpoint but I find the vindictive label a bit childish to be honest.

 

I have a fairly solid understanding of life in the UK thanks and travel home frequently - wonderful things, aircraft. However your view that 100K isn't a modest salary for the responsibility of representing  many 10,000's of people, shows a total lack of understanding when it comes to the market for "leaders" at that level.  A quick google search shows current MP's salaries pre the 11% uplift as being roughly on par with a senior business analyst in Birmingham City Council.  

[drat01]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then? Despite the fact that all of the party leaders have publicly come out against this?

 

On the vindictive cuts, I suppose the food banks etc are just made up myths of some propaganda machine? - You may find these sort of things "childish" but I suspect many in the UK suffering massively because of them would question your views a lot more forcefully than VT allows me to do so

 

Obviously if you still maintain that 100K is a "modest salary" then you have no sense of reality within the UK. Reference to Birmingham Council has no relevance to the argument at all and is clearly no justification for the idea that 100K is a "modest salary". Again I go back and see if your views on this figure resonates with most in the UK and again I suspect the answer will be slightly full of expletives

 

Edit - http://career-advice.monster.co.uk/salary-benefits/pay-salary-advice/uk-average-salary-graphs/article.aspx

Edited December 13, 2013 by drat01

[MakemineVanilla]

Most people seem to want MPs to wear a hair shirt, prostrate themselves before a vengeful public and do a very responsible job for a relatively modest salary given the role, instead of having an easier and better remunerated life in the private sector.

As with most things in life you get what you pay for, unless people want a HoC stuffed with people so rich they don't need the income anyway which seems a bit 18th century (although admittedly there are already plenty of those on both sides of the House).

 

What is interesting is how the claim that a pay cut will drive down the quality of outcome for certain groups but not for others.

 

Driving down the quality of cleaners, postmen and plumbers is never considered a factor when their wages and conditions (pensions) are made worse.

 

The claim is only ever used (allowed) for the jobs of people of a certain class, everyone else is referred to in the same terms as a commodity.

 

Its all about the difference between ascribed status and earned status, which is totally class-based.

[bickster]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then?

An independent review body

[drat01]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then?

An independent review body

and did the leaders all say they were wrong and shouldn't go through?

[bickster]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then?

An independent review body

and did the leaders all say they were wrong and shouldn't go through?

The leaders told them to think again but no of them can influence the decision apparently

[Risso]

 

I think the key word was "relatively" modest.  Put it this way Drat, would you take the pay cut to be an MP?!

Would you Mart? (and pay tax :-) )

 

Even the word relatively does not make it a modest salary at all, especially given the "package" that goes with it. As for doing the job, I would have no desire whatsoever to do that job as I think that with the exception a very very small minority the intentions of most in politics (and that includes local as well as national) are there for self serving reasons rather than in a sense of public well doing. The thought of working in that sort of environment is not one that I would personally find any sort of satisfaction from doing

 

 

Sorry if this seems like semantics, but I think the word "relatively" has huge importance here.  As AWOL says, these people are to a certain extent running the country, and yet the salary is lower than many people doing a far less important or stressful job.  And no, I absolutely wouldn't want either the job, pay or tax!

Edited December 13, 2013 by Risso

[chrisp65]

Well, I was going to write something about how being a minister for the arts or similar would bump your salary up to £79k.

 

But I was wrong, being a minister adds a further £79k to your basic £65k, there's a few ministries I'd happily head up and blunder through a year of reviews to pick up £145,492.00 

 

Failing that, I could step in and be a second deputy to the chief whip of the opposition, this must be a fantastically difficult task, as it adds a further £26,600 to the insufficient £65,738 I'd otherwise have been scraping by with.

 

 

 

oooh, there's the job for me, deputy to the deputy speaker! how hard can being second reserve be for an extra £36,360 per annum?

Edited December 13, 2013 by chrisp65

[drat01]

 

 

I think the key word was "relatively" modest.  Put it this way Drat, would you take the pay cut to be an MP?!

Would you Mart? (and pay tax :-) )

 

Even the word relatively does not make it a modest salary at all, especially given the "package" that goes with it. As for doing the job, I would have no desire whatsoever to do that job as I think that with the exception a very very small minority the intentions of most in politics (and that includes local as well as national) are there for self serving reasons rather than in a sense of public well doing. The thought of working in that sort of environment is not one that I would personally find any sort of satisfaction from doing

 

 

Sorry if this seems like semantics, but I think the word "relatively" has huge importance here.  As AWOL says, these people are to a certain extent running the country, and yet the salary is lower than many people doing a far less important or stressful job.  And no, I absolutely wouldn't want either the job, pay or tax!

 

Sorry but I do not agree - there is no way in anyones world that 100K etc can be classified as modest whatever word you put in front of it unless the word is nofuckingwayisthis

[drat01]

 

 

 

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then?

An independent review body

 

and did the leaders all say they were wrong and shouldn't go through?

 

The leaders told them to think again but no of them can influence the decision apparently

 

You can actually - it's a simple thing basically you do not accept the wage increase. No one is forcing any of them to accept the pay increase whoever "decided" as such

[bickster]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then?

An independent review body

and did the leaders all say they were wrong and shouldn't go through?

The leaders told them to think again but no of them can influence the decision apparently

You can actually - it's a simple thing basically you do not accept the wage increase. No one is forcing any of them to accept the pay increase whoever "decided" as such

There are plenty that will just take it though. PMQ's was testimony to that, all three leaders agreed, total silence from the back benches

But for me, its not really about the amount of money, I'm quite happy for them to get much more as I've already stated as long as they dedicate themselves to job as I previously outlined

[Awol]

Straws clutching - so who approved the pay rise then? Despite the fact that all of the party leaders have publicly come out against this?

 

Edit - http://career-advice.monster.co.uk/salary-benefits/pay-salary-advice/uk-average-salary-graphs/article.aspx

The body that has said MP's salaries should rise is IPSA. The details are here: BBC if you are interested in learning about it.  They can't "refuse" it as they no longer set their own pay, they could though if they chose to give the increase to charity or whatever.

 

On the vindictive cuts, I suppose the food banks etc are just made up myths of some propaganda machine? - You may find these sort of things "childish" but I suspect many in the UK suffering massively because of them would question your views a lot more forcefully than VT allows me to do so

As usual you've deliberately twisted my words, I said that labelling the cuts as "vindictive" was childish imo. The effects of those cuts has clearly led to real hardships for some but the aim of them is to try and reduce public spending to bring down the structural deficit. If the objective wasn't to get a grip on public spending but to try and punish people for not having a lot of money then that would be vindictive - and bizarre.

 

Obviously if you still maintain that 100K is a "modest salary" then you have no sense of reality within the UK. Reference to Birmingham Council has no relevance to the argument at all and is clearly no justification for the idea that 100K is a "modest salary". Again I go back and see if your views on this figure resonates with most in the UK and again I suspect the answer will be slightly full of expletives

 

As Mart has said the word "relatively" is key because it puts the words "modest salary" in context. The rates of pay in a role of equivalent or lesser responsibility in both the public and private sector can and do far outstrip the salary of an MP.  The example given of a mid level council official was simply to illustrate that point. Either you are unaware of that or are choosing to ignore it to suit your argument, but I'm not really bothered either way.

[drat01]

AWOL - Yes they can refuse it. No one has to accept a pay rise.

 

Re the cuts, many still think they are vindictive. You used the word "childish

 

As I replied to Mart - if you honestly think that a package of 100K can in any way be called modest, regardless of what word you put in front of it, then you are seriously not living in the modern world. As the page showed that I linked to the average salaries get nowhere near that. As for the comparisons you are trying to make then you really are clutching at straws trying to vindicate your views.

 

100K modest - can't wait for salary negotiations all over to use that :-)

[MakemineVanilla]

[drat01]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-david-cameron-pictures-that-conservatives-are-allowed

 

Apparently you can only show certain photo's of Cameron now :-)

 

Now where is that Bullingdon one again  .........