MPs set for above inflation payrise

[ROCKET80]

Well if we take Liz Truss as an example, reading her bio, she studied at Oxford University, politics, economics, philosophy, was president of the Lib Dem’s at the above University. Started working for Dutch Shell and qualified as a Chartered mgmt accountant before moving to Cable and Wireless and becoming the economic director.

I appreciate you might not consider her talented but the private world of industry did, and she qualified from one of the top two universities of England prior to moving into politics.

It’s unlikely, without being offered a reasonable wage, she would have moved into politics.

You are correct, as I understand it there are not a list of qualifications you require. Personally I think that is a good thing as it keeps politics more of a meritocracy. Then it is up to the public to decide who they vote for.

It is of course not a perfect system and like you say some MPs get put into safe seats to accelerate their career path. I suppose you hope that, in the majority of cases, this is because their talent has been identified.

Truss does seem to have been bright and talented. One can only assume that at some point she was kicked in the head by a horse.

There should be a rule that MPs cannot be fast-tracked into safe-seats without first living in and serving the community they wish to represent (either working with a local candidate first or on the local council) for a period of time. Talent is important (although a 'talented MP' is a vague concept), but genuine local connection and understanding come from direct experience within the constituency.

This would ensure MPs are not just career politicians but are invested in the people and issues of the area. It’s about creating representatives who reflect and advocate for their communities, not just their party’s interests.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Truss does seem to have been bright and talented. One can only assume that at some point she was kicked in the head by a horse.

There should be a rule that MPs cannot be fast-tracked into safe-seats without first living in and serving the community they wish to represent (either working with a local candidate first or on the local council) for a period of time. Talent is important (although a 'talented MP' is a vague concept), but genuine local connection and understanding come from direct experience within the constituency.

This would ensure MPs are not just career politicians but are invested in the people and issues of the area. It’s about creating representatives who reflect and advocate for their communities, not just their party’s interests.

Money.

 

[paulchapo]

All I can say is FFS.

I'm still peed off at missing out on what would have been my first winter fuel payment. Its one law for us and another for those corrupt lying weasels.

It's always been the case and sadly always will. I wouldn't mind if they were some kind of geniuses who earned their vast salary and made people's lives better but as we've seen over decades that certainly isn't the case.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Yep. Pretty much. Don’t get me wrong, I know £94k is a lot of money to most people… but do you want the best and brightest doing the role? Well they are currently in the City earning double that with a fraction of the hassle, responsibility or scrutiny. And they get perks, stock options, a chance to accumulate wealth.

In London £90k is the salary of a middling project manager in financial services. It’s an expensive place to live and work and the salaries reflect that. I think frankly you’d have to be a bit unhinged to rather be an MP and have your career path be decided every 5 years. Which is probably why most MPs are either a bit nuts or landed gentry or both.

What evidence is that the brightest and best work in the city?

Seems a big assumption. Is a city trader earning more than an emergency room doctor really brighter and more astute than a doctor?

Is it possible that people in the public sector with a genuine calling for public service might be better suited to government than finance industry workers driven by opportunism and greed?

 

[meltonblue]

Ultimately it’s a position open to anyone that’s voted into it by their constituents. I’ve always struggled a bit with anyone that’s moaned about the incumbents too much.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The two MPs murdered in recent years were both backbenchers and not particularly high profile. They can quite easily disconnect from social media, of course, but discourtesy and malevolence are as much a threat in the physical world, too.

I think an MEP still earns slightly more than an MP, and about three quarters of them still have second jobs, at least. Long advocated that they should all be paid much more, be prevented from taking second jobs, and be granted a salary (decreasing annually) for three years after their service is ended. The temptation to serve lobby groups over those whom they should be representing is just too great, and the speed at which gamekeeper becomes poacher is embarrassing.

I think you're very naive if you think continuing to pay them a salary after they're voted out (and let's be honest, sometimes they may be voted out for pretty horrendous reasons) would prevent them from taking a job with a company that benefited from their tenure.

It would actually be pretty simple to enforce a rule that prevents an obvious conflict of interest like this, and prevents them from taking a job with a company that benefited from their tenure. Big corporations do it all the time with things like NDAs and non-compete agreements. It wouldn't be hard to put a rule in place that says if you've been the health secretary, you can't then immediately go to a job in that sector with anyone you have previously had meetings with, a relationship with, or has donated to your party. But the key is rules, not guidelines. Politicians need to stop assuming that they are all basically good chaps who can police themselves.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

In London £90k is the salary of a middling project manager in financial services. It’s an expensive place to live and work and the salaries reflect that. I think frankly you’d have to be a bit unhinged to rather be an MP and have your career path be decided every 5 years. Which is probably why most MPs are either a bit nuts or landed gentry or both.

It's an expensive place to live and work if the public isn't paying for your accommodation, transport and food. Once those expenses are removed, London is no more expensive than anywhere else.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’m no conservative, far from it, but after reading Rory Stewart’s book, we could do with a lot more like him running things.

Comes across fantastically. Smart, funny, dedicated, and highlighted a lot of the absolute stupidity in the current system.

Top bloke is Rory.

 

[Kompany Car]

Ultimately it’s a position open to anyone that’s voted into it by their constituents. I’ve always struggled a bit with anyone that’s moaned about the incumbents too much.

For any significant level of authority you need to be in one of the major parties. So you need to toe their party line which in doing so doesn't encourage free thinking.

It a fundamental problem with party politics.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

For any significant level of authority you need to be in one of the major parties. So you need to toe their party line which in doing so doesn't encourage free thinking.

It a fundamental problem with party politics.

And the system means that MPs don’t vote in the best interests of their constituents, the people that elected them.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Truss does seem to have been bright and talented. One can only assume that at some point she was kicked in the head by a horse.

There should be a rule that MPs cannot be fast-tracked into safe-seats without first living in and serving the community they wish to represent (either working with a local candidate first or on the local council) for a period of time. Talent is important (although a 'talented MP' is a vague concept), but genuine local connection and understanding come from direct experience within the constituency.

This would ensure MPs are not just career politicians but are invested in the people and issues of the area. It’s about creating representatives who reflect and advocate for their communities, not just their party’s interests.

I would contend that common sense, empathy, decency and moral courage come before qualifications and Truss has none of those. Local connections and service should also be a pre-requisite.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

It's always been the case and sadly always will. I wouldn't mind if they were some kind of geniuses who earned their vast salary and made people's lives better but as we've seen over decades that certainly isn't the case.

I get the impression most of them are as thick as two short planks. Certainly the way some of them dress - turn up resembling ragamuffins, can't enunciate correctly and have trouble concentrating - constantly looking at their mobile. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days of the old establishment, but there was a time when an MP was a respectable person of standing - in the majority of cases, I exclude Thorpe, Profumo, Hancock etc. I am equally fascinated, appalled, annoyed and intrigued when we watch the Parliament prog and PMQs. Often I am left aghast at how they behave, an insult to playground children!

 

[Palerider]

I get the impression most of them are as thick as two short planks. Certainly the way some of them dress - turn up resembling ragamuffins, can't enunciate correctly and have trouble concentrating - constantly looking at their mobile. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days of the old establishment, but there was a time when an MP was a respectable person of standing - in the majority of cases, I exclude Thorpe, Profumo, Hancock etc. I am equally fascinated, appalled, annoyed and intrigued when we watch the Parliament prog and PMQs. Often I am left aghast at how they behave, an insult to playground children!

I think respect for all 'public servants' (Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Journalists, Police, Social Workers, MPs, Civil Servants etc) has all but disappeared. Difficult to see how a society can function correctly if we do not respect and trust the workers/organisations running that society.

 

[inbetween]

They should be paid more, with their expenses limited vastly and banned from having second jobs.

Agree 100%. FTSE 100 CEO's are on average paid 20x/30x more than the PM.

We shouldn't be surprised that we get a crap class of MP's because most of them are not in it for the money given the salaries are shite. They're in it to boost their CV and contacts whilst using their profile for money making opportunities. Indeed double their pay, kerb the expenses and ban second jobs.

Did Nigel Farage become an MP to earn £90k per year whilst spending 100% of his time serving the people of Clacton? Not a chance, he'll serve the people of Clacton 10% of the time and the rest of the time he'll use to make £££.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

I think respect for all 'public servants' (Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers, Journalists, Police, Social Workers, MPs, Civil Servants etc) has all but disappeared. Difficult to see how a society can function correctly if we do not respect and trust the workers/organisations running that society.

Agree totally. There is sadly very little respect anywhere. I know it has to be earned but there are very few role models or examples around imo. There is actually very little peer respect around, people just feel entitled to basically do what they want, about 80% within legal confines. The last decade has definitely seen the rise and continuing prevalence of the 'I'm alright Jack, sod you ' type of behaviour across all levels of society. And as for manners - pah forget them.

 

[hilts]

Well if we take Liz Truss as an example, reading her bio, she studied at Oxford University, politics, economics, philosophy, was president of the Lib Dem’s at the above University. Started working for Dutch Shell and qualified as a Chartered mgmt accountant before moving to Cable and Wireless and becoming the economic director.

I appreciate you might not consider her talented but the private world of industry did, and she qualified from one of the top two universities of England prior to moving into politics.

It’s unlikely, without being offered a reasonable wage, she would have moved into politics.

You are correct, as I understand it there are not a list of qualifications you require. Personally I think that is a good thing as it keeps politics more of a meritocracy. Then it is up to the public to decide who they vote for.

It is of course not a perfect system and like you say some MPs get put into safe seats to accelerate their career path. I suppose you hope that, in the majority of cases, this is because their talent has been identified.

I'm not sure the bolded part helps your case:-)

 

[hilts]

They earn less than headteacher of a small school …and then 100s of thousands on gb news or hustles from bookies

Pay them a great wage and stop all the side hustles

I would rather have the school teacher tbh.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Quite an easy solution to this.

Have a higher level of pay for MPs, so that they can actually do their job properly without the need for external funding. But cut back on expenses and ban second jobs, union funding and freebies.

The number of MPs should then be greatly reduced, and constituencies merged, so that we only have 300 or so MPs, maybe even 200. For a kick off there’d be fewer safe seats and reduced opportunity to parachute idiot MPs into them.

There’s no particular reason why we need 650 of them. I believe we’ve had more than 500 MPs since the middle of the 17th century, and I would argue that the means of communication available to MPs has moved on a bit since then.

The trend of the past 30 years or so has been to respond to dissatisfaction with government, and broader public sector incompetence, by creating more and more of it. City mayors, regional and National Assemblies, various quangos and watchdogs. All incompetent and an enormous waste of money. It all needs to be reduced or removed entirely.

 

[hilts]

I would contend that common sense, empathy, decency and moral courage come before qualifications and Truss has none of those. Local connections and service should also be a pre-requisite.

Exactly, I'm also finding it hard to grasp the argument that Truss is the right person for the job due to her 'talent' in economics.

The daft woman lost 30 billion in less time than it took her to put the first bogey under her desk.

 

[hilts]

Quite an easy solution to this.

Have a higher level of pay for MPs, so that they can actually do their job properly without the need for external funding. But cut back on expenses and ban second jobs, union funding and freebies.

The number of MPs should then be greatly reduced, and constituencies merged, so that we only have 300 or so MPs, maybe even 200. For a kick off there’d be fewer safe seats and reduced opportunity to parachute idiot MPs into them.

There’s no particular reason why we need 650 of them. I believe we’ve had more than 500 MPs since the middle of the 17th century, and I would argue that the means of communication available to MPs has moved on a bit since then.

The trend of the past 30 years or so has been to respond to dissatisfaction with government, and broader public sector incompetence, by creating more and more of it. City mayors, regional and National Assemblies, various quangos and watchdogs. All incompetent and an enormous waste of money. It all needs to be reduced or removed entirely.

Unfortunately we know those that benefit from all this are the only ones who can change it..

Also needing more money isn't something that applies to most MPs You could give a lot of them an extra 50k i don't believe that means they would turn their noses up at outside dosh.