MPs Pay Rise

[mad4slalom]

stuart has it about right , very few of them have ever had a proper job of any form , they are totally not in the real world , are full of their own importance and are in it for what they can get, how any one of any integrity whatsoever could accept an eleven % rise on an already high salary, and expect real world workers to accept a pay freeze is beyond me, and any that do are just confirming the above. the three leaders banging on that they wont accept it is even more offensive, grandstanding how moral they are, I should fucking think so given their salaries, backgrounds and connections that mean they pay for very little and freeload at any opportunity. there are a few hardworking ones amongst them who serve their constituants well, these are normally from the back benches who haven't made it to the forefront yet, that is normally when their egos get inflated. I was on the embankment last week when dc was in china, about to cross Vauxhall bridge when 4 motorcycle cops stopped all traffic at the lights another two drove ahead to do the same at the next lights , then another four came along leading a gas guzzling range rover with puppet prime minister clegg in the passenger seat ,who the f**k does he think he is ?, what about His carbon footprint, he' the twat making us subsidise his fucking wind and solar farms, and paying near 500 quid to tax a hobby M that does 2 thousand miles a year, I bet he doesn't pay the tax on the range rover,! why the f**k isn't he in a prius or on public transport, what did that journey to the commons cost the taxpayer? and that's just one of them, the older I get the more I am convinced that whichever party is in power most of them are in it for themselves.it will take the coalition at least two terms to repair the damage done by blair who now is swanning the world cashing in on connections made whilst supposedly serving the country, and making millions from it , that twat would even arrange a meeting before or after his holiday so the taxpayer could fund his trips and he could use the queens flight ! cant express the contempt I feel for that creep, clegg is a spineless fencesitter who will do a deal with whoever he thinks will keep him in a power sharing position. governing for the common good ? my arse. :thumbsdown:

 

[original guvnor]

stuart has it about right , very few of them have ever had a proper job of any form , they are totally not in the real world , are full of their own importance and are in it for what they can get, how any one of any integrity whatsoever could accept an eleven % rise on an already high salary, and expect real world workers to accept a pay freeze is beyond me

This is the sort of ill-informed comment I hear time and time again. I don't mean to single you out mad4slalom. You are only repeating what others have said many times before.

I'll ask you a simple question. How many of the 650 MP's are you familiar with? How do you know that very few of them have ever had a proper job? Tell me how many? I bet you've no idea. The extract above is also full of other similar tired and inaccurate cliches.

Yes there are sone rotten apples, some excellent, good, average, indifferent and bad MP's just like any other profession you care to mention.

I pose a simple question. If the salary is so good and the job so attractive why does it not tempt a new generation of young, up and coming professionals?

We all want better MP's but you won't get them by penny pinching. The bright-young-things mostly run a mile. Who can blame them.

 

[Merrsh1]

They aren't paid enough. I wouldn't do it for twice what they are paid currently.

The real issue isn't that they are paid too little its that other comparable professions are paid too much. A top tier manager in the NHS is paid more than the PM.

The entire public sector pay structure is so out of whack its unreal.

 

[GordonM]

.

Edit - based on their performance as a management team, in any other world they'd have been long ago fired.

Here Here !!!!!

 

[exdos]

I pose a simple question. If the salary is so good and the job so attractive why does it not tempt a new generation of young, up and coming professionals?

We all want better MP's but you won't get them by penny pinching. The bright-young-things mostly run a mile. Who can blame them.

OG,

It would appear that you are advocating more younger MPs; a group that I would consider to be "career politicians". Intelligent young people become intelligent older people with the added benefit of experience of life. I would argue that it's the "experience" element that makes better politicians rather than sheer intelligence alone. I want a selection of worthy candidates to select from at an election where I can see their life's experience so that I can assess who I think would have the most to offer in my constituency and country. If a candidate has proven to be a successful person in the "real world" then I would suggest that they have more to offer than someone who is only on offer as a party candidate because they are a good "party person" who will toe the party line and has only promises from their party to offer.

I would suggest that older MPs generally want to put something back into their society in which they have been successful and so a high salary is not their main concern, whereas a young career politician must view becoming an MP/backbencher a stepping stone to higher things via the networking available as an MP and greater wealth from both political promotion and from the spin-offs available from their association with others at high level.

I pose a simple question. If the salary is so bad, why did Tony B Liar leave his job as a barrister and take a considerable pay cut to become an MP?

 

[original guvnor]

I can see why you'd think that Exdos but that wasn't my intention. I think MP's should be a broad cross section of the wider population really. So some older, some younger, some of every ethnicity and male and female, gay and straight. They can't all be older people nearing the end of their career because then they'd lack relevance for young people for example and would find it a lot harder to understand young people's issues/concerns. What I meant by bright young things was intelligent, successful people who had forged a career away from politics before they entered parliament.

Believe it or not, some MP's do seek office to serve. They do believe they can make a difference, they do want to change things for the better. The shame of the recent scandal on expenses and a general mistrust of politicians is that we are now sceptical of anyone who wishes to offer themselves up as public servants.

Maybe Tony Blair wanted to be PM for those reasons. I'm not his greatest fan but I don't think he wanted to be a politician remembered for the Iraq war. I'm sure waging war on Saddam Hussein never entered his head at the start of his campaign to become PM. That he got himself embroiled in all that is what Macmillan used to call "events dear boy, events".

 

[chris g]

Pay them more, demand more, and make them more accountable.

I think the MP role is important, its more than a middle manager IMO and we get what we pay for.

 

[Mowflow]

Paying them more won't change anything and even if the pay was massive it wouldn't attract the best people, it would just attract fatter leaches. Make it an unpaid or low basic position with an award/payment scheme based on review by your constituents.

 

[original guvnor]

Paying them more won't change anything and even if the pay was massive it wouldn't attract the best people

Hardly surprising when you read some of the comments on this thread. I'd hazard a guess most people have no idea what an MP does in a typical week. Most of you will never have been to the Houses of Parliament or to one of their surgeries. You will have no idea how many hours they work or why their work is so important. You will also have no idea what they used to do before coming an MP. Most of you will base your comments or thoughts on MP's on PM Questions or on the media and we all know they always tell the truth, right?

I've said so many times now on this Forum. You get the politicians you deserve. Think on that last point a little longer.

 

[markeg]

I've said so many times now on this Forum. You get the politicians you deserve. Think on that last point a little longer.

If that's true, then woots deserves Ilona Staller (aka Cicciolina)





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[original guvnor]

I've said so many times now on this Forum. You get the politicians you deserve. Think on that last point a little longer.

If that's true, then woots deserves Ilona Staller (aka Cicciolina)





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[exdos]

I can see why you'd think that Exdos but that wasn't my intention. I think MP's should be a broad cross section of the wider population really. So some older, some younger, some of every ethnicity and male and female, gay and straight. They can't all be older people nearing the end of their career because then they'd lack relevance for young people for example and would find it a lot harder to understand young people's issues/concerns. What I meant by bright young things was intelligent, successful people who had forged a career away from politics before they entered parliament.

I think it would be extremely hard to have a broad cross section of the population as MPs without some form of positive discrimination; something that I very much dislike for our so-called "meritocracy". We simply need the best candidates to stand at election in all the constituencies, irrespective of gender, age, race, colour, creed or sexuality etc. and then let the electorate decide who they wish to elect as their MPs. The best candidates will be reasonable people, able to consider the issues of relevance to specific groups other than their own without belonging to those groups themselves. If we had MPs selected along the lines you propose, then how would the interests of, say, old, white, straight males be better served by say, young, black, gay female MPs selected for their age, colour, gender and sexuality rather than on their ability to act "reasonably" at all times irrespective of the issues under consideration? I consider positive discrimination to be divisive.

Believe it or not, some MP's do seek office to serve. They do believe they can make a difference, they do want to change things for the better. The shame of the recent scandal on expenses and a general mistrust of politicians is that we are now sceptical of anyone who wishes to offer themselves up as public servants.

Maybe Tony Blair wanted to be PM for those reasons. I'm not his greatest fan but I don't think he wanted to be a politician remembered for the Iraq war. I'm sure waging war on Saddam Hussein never entered his head at the start of his campaign to become PM. That he got himself embroiled in all that is what Macmillan used to call "events dear boy, events".

I agree and think that a lot of people enter politics at all levels with the intention of trying to make a difference for the better, but then find that the reality is that they have to toe the party-line. MPs soon realise that their career in politics will be very short-lived if they attempt to make a name for themselves by simply speaking out as they might have done at their entrance into politics, and learn that they have to toadie up to those further up the party hierarchy if they wish to progress. They also soon discover that being an MP opens doors to all manner of things from which they can personally benefit (e.g. directorships etc.) and most seem happy to accept the trade-off of toeing the party line for personal gain.

With specific regard to Tony B Liar: it's ironic that he should resign as PM and leave politics altogether so that he could use his political status and International networking to make a personal fortune, something which he would've been unable to have done had he not been an MP/PM first. He simply mugged the UK electorate. I have the same regard for the egotist, Boris Johnson, who seems to be playing out his childhood dream to become "King of The World": these sort of people are not in politics to serve the electorate.

Hardly surprising when you read some of the comments on this thread. I'd hazard a guess most people have no idea what an MP does in a typical week. Most of you will never have been to the Houses of Parliament or to one of their surgeries. You will have no idea how many hours they work or why their work is so important. You will also have no idea what they used to do before coming an MP. Most of you will base your comments or thoughts on MP's on PM Questions or on the media and we all know they always tell the truth, right?

These comments are not applicable to me. Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time bending MP's ears on several different issues and our last MP served this constituency for 35 years until he retired and was exceptionally good for ALL in his constituency.

 

[original guvnor]

I can see why you'd think that Exdos but that wasn't my intention. I think MP's should be a broad cross section of the wider population really. So some older, some younger, some of every ethnicity and male and female, gay and straight. They can't all be older people nearing the end of their career because then they'd lack relevance for young people for example and would find it a lot harder to understand young people's issues/concerns. What I meant by bright young things was intelligent, successful people who had forged a career away from politics before they entered parliament.

I think it would be extremely hard to have a broad cross section of the population as MPs without some form of positive discrimination; something that I very much dislike for our so-called "meritocracy". We simply need the best candidates to stand at election in all the constituencies, irrespective of gender, age, race, colour, creed or sexuality etc. and then let the electorate decide who they wish to elect as their MPs. The best candidates will be reasonable people, able to consider the issues of relevance to specific groups other than their own without belonging to those group themselves. If we had MPs selected along the lines you propose, then how would the interests of, say, old, white, straight males be better served by say, young, black, gay female MPs selected for their age, colour, gender and sexuality rather than on their ability to act "reasonably" at all times irrespective of the issues under consideration? I consider positive discrimination to be divisive.

You quote me a little too literally there Exdos! You know what I mean though. There needs to be a mix of people in the House of Commons that is reflective of society. Not through positive discrimination though. I can't abide that.

Believe it or not, some MP's do seek office to serve. They do believe they can make a difference, they do want to change things for the better. The shame of the recent scandal on expenses and a general mistrust of politicians is that we are now sceptical of anyone who wishes to offer themselves up as public servants.

Maybe Tony Blair wanted to be PM for those reasons. I'm not his greatest fan but I don't think he wanted to be a politician remembered for the Iraq war. I'm sure waging war on Saddam Hussein never entered his head at the start of his campaign to become PM. That he got himself embroiled in all that is what Macmillan used to call "events dear boy, events".

I agree and think that a lot of people enter politics at all levels with the intention of trying to make a difference for the better, but then find that the reality is that they have to toe the party-line. MPs soon realise that their career in politics will be very short-lived if they attempt to make a name for themselves by simply speaking out as they might have done at their entrance into politics, and learn that they have to toadie up to those further up the party hierarchy if they wish to progress. They also soon discover that being an MP opens doors to all manner of things from which they can personally benefit (e.g. directorships etc.) and most seem happy to accept the trade-off of toeing the party line for personal gain.

With specific regard to Tony B Liar: it's ironic that he should resign as PM and leave politics altogether so that he could use his political status and International networking to make a personal fortune, something which he would've been unable to have done had he not been an MP/PM first. He simply mugged the UK electorate. I have the same regard for the egotist, Boris Johnson, who seems to be playing out his childhood dream to become "King of The World": these sort of people are not in politics to serve the electorate.

One of the advantages of being a PM (on what is a very low salary really) is that you know you'll get it back with interest when you eventually retire, from participating on the after dinner speaking circuit and from writing your memoirs!

 

[original guvnor]

These comments are not applicable to me. Over the years, I've spent a fair amount of time bending MP's ears on several different issues and our last MP served this constituency for 35 years until he retired and was exceptionally good for ALL in his constituency.

Correct, they weren't aimed at you, because I can tell from the discussion we've had, that you've given these issues some serious thought. There's a fair few of those type of MP's out there. Nobody sells any newspapers from covering stories like that though. Most people these days seem to just stand on the sidelines, taking a tabloid position, and rubbish everything they do without bothering to understand anything, even a basic level of information, about what they actually do for their constituents.