This is getting beyond bad

DonDaddyD

MatHammond wrote:

I think there is a correlation between ability to do the job and amount you earn - we need to have people in government who are highly educated, and (unfortunately) that costs a lot of money. A lot of graduates are saddled with huge debts, so its a very real factor in career choice whether they'll be able to earn enough to pay off those debts. And beyond that, I don't think its unreasonable to make the best of the possibilities open to you financially, to have a better lifestyle and more security to bring up your family or whatever you want to do.

There is a difference to wanting to live happily with a modest salery that affords you a happy life and enough free time to live life and a person that is savagely money hungry. Intelligence, qualifications, skill and competance aren't measurable variables in that equation.

My Aunt has an MBE she went to Uni in her 30's for her Doctorate. At no point in her life has desired to earn a large salary, she has a different calling in life. I don't think anyone can argue with her intelligence or ability to lead. I think what you've wrote is a little naive. Lets remove the money hungry politicians, up the salary and give more money to even more hungry Politicians... yeah that makes sense.

I certainly wasn't saying that nobody who earns less than £60k could do the job of an MP, just saying that limiting an MP's salary to that level is likely to deter a lot of competent people (or, as seems to happen, mean that those people look to make up the shortfall in dubious ways).

I think being an MP is a job you take not because of the large salary. I would feel more comfortable voting for someone who took the job becuase they are firstly passionate about the job/challenge/task of leading the nation and secondly because the salary is relatively decent.

And its not just MPs, a lot of areas in the public sector struggle to attract the calibre of applicant they need - teachers, social workers, dentists etc.

Like I said I've seen this logic, the best public servants are those that take the job because they have a real passion not because they are in the 50p in even £1 tax bracket.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Christophe3967 wrote:

MPs stealing our money is inevitable, as the electorate haven't held them to account at the ballot box.

But isn't the problem more deep seated than that?

The root of the trough problem is that MPs set their own pay/benefits. You boot one lot out at the ballot box, and you get another lot who are not remotely committed to changing the system. No one's prepared to say "vote for me. I'll kick the trough over".

I seem to recall that the provincial govt in BC, Canada voted for a salary hike a couple of years ago which provoked sufficient outrage that it ended up having to appoint an independent commission to recommend what salaries should be. Can't see that happening here.

laughingboy

MatHammond wrote:

I certainly wasn't saying that nobody who earns less than £60k could do the job of an MP, just saying that limiting an MP's salary to that level is likely to deter a lot of competent people (or, as seems to happen, mean that those people look to make up the shortfall in dubious ways).

And its not just MPs, a lot of areas in the public sector struggle to attract the calibre of applicant they need - teachers, social workers, dentists etc.

I'm sure that you are right - I just think that, unlike most jobs, MPs' salary is supplemented by the obvious 'status/influence/power' that they have (and the considerable 'perks' of the green book - travel allowances, etc.). This means that a straight comparison with, say, an executive working for Coca Cola is not a straight comparison.

And that's not to mention MPs' pensions.

DonDaddyD

I think there is an over reliance on schools to educate. Parents leave it to the schools and forget that they need to structure children, sit and work with them and help with their homework. Take them to museums, galleries and the like and not just sit them infront of the X-box so that they can keep quiet.

My Secondary School has closed down and been bought out by Harris Academy. I didn't want the life my school would suggest. Most of my firends went to Alleyns in Dulwich as does my best friend. We ALL have degrees (I don't do too badly financially within the group - with one of us possibly earning in excess of £50K). I don't think I turned out too badly.

But yes schools need to be improved.

Would I send my Kids to private? Depends on where I live - in that I agree with Chris3967.

Eau Rouge

Greg66 wrote:

No one's prepared to say "vote for me. I'll kick the trough over".

Take the Lib Dems, never getting in power as things stand.
If they turn around tomorrow and say they will "kick the trough over", would they win the next election?

Thats how democracy works, right? If enough people in the country want the trough kicked over, and one party says they will do it, they win. That no party says they will do it implies to me that no party thinks kicking the trough over is popular enough to win them seats. They must think that it is actually an unpopular policy and not one they want to go near. Labour or the Tories have less to gain, but the Lib Dems would surely jump on it otherwise.

lost_in_thought

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

No one's prepared to say "vote for me. I'll kick the trough over".

Take the Lib Dems, never getting in power as things stand.
If they turn around tomorrow and say they will "kick the trough over", would they win the next election?

Thats how democracy works, right? If enough people in the country want the trough kicked over, and one party says they will do it, they win. That no party says they will do it implies to me that no party thinks kicking the trough over is popular enough to win them seats. They must think that it is actually an unpopular policy and not one they want to go near. Labour or the Tories have less to gain, but the Lib Dems would surely jump on it otherwise.

This is one o fthe big issues in politics at the minute, as I see it. Most of the big 'policy changes' engineered by the current gov't. are purely party political moves to generate more seats in the next election.

Nobody is doing what they think is right any more, instead they're pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to look like they're doing something voteworthy.

This will continue for another 12 months at least... hopefully a brief respite thereafter....

DonDaddyD

Voting for the Lib Dems is a waste of time, its like throwing away your vote.

There is almost no difference between Labour and the Conservatives anymore. They're two different roads to incompetance.

What would be brilliant is if no one voted at all.

bigmat

laughingboy wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I certainly wasn't saying that nobody who earns less than £60k could do the job of an MP, just saying that limiting an MP's salary to that level is likely to deter a lot of competent people (or, as seems to happen, mean that those people look to make up the shortfall in dubious ways).

And its not just MPs, a lot of areas in the public sector struggle to attract the calibre of applicant they need - teachers, social workers, dentists etc.

I'm sure that you are right - I just think that, unlike most jobs, MPs' salary is supplemented by the obvious 'status/influence/power' that they have (and the considerable 'perks' of the green book - travel allowances, etc.). This means that a straight comparison with, say, an executive working for Coca Cola is not a straight comparison.

And that's not to mention MPs' pensions.

Agreed, the whole point was that maybe if there was a more competitive salary then we could do away with all these fringe benefits and allowances and have a more transparent system.

And DDD, you say I'm being naive? You want to put your faith in there being enough people out there who feel it is their calling to staff the public sector? Look at education as an example, at the risk of being over-simplistic, the state system wouldn't be on its arse to the degree that it is if teachers were paid enough to attract a better calibre of applicant. I know people who have really wanted to do it, but when they have looked into it, they have come to the conclusion that they simply couldn't afford it. And that isn't money-hungry people, just regular people with mortgages, families to support etc. etc. So we end up with principled people like you (and me) having to accept that they may have to send their kids to private school.

I know I wouldn't do an MP's job for £63k with the hours, commitment and press intrusion that involves, although if I was that type of character the "allowances" and non-executive directorships might just encourage me.

laughingboy

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

No one's prepared to say "vote for me. I'll kick the trough over".

Take the Lib Dems, never getting in power as things stand.
If they turn around tomorrow and say they will "kick the trough over", would they win the next election?....They must think that it is actually an unpopular policy and not one they want to go near. Labour or the Tories have less to gain, but the Lib Dems would surely jump on it otherwise.

The sad thing is, it seems that the Lib Dems have been saying exactly that:

"...we've got to do something different. And that should begin with urgent reform to the lamentable system of MPs' pay and expenses. But then it must go much further. We must reform politics itself"(Guardian Article)

but no-one has noticed.

shoulder_of_orion

DonDaddyD wrote:

Would I send my Kids to private?

Probably not if you earned less than £63k. Private school is expensive, £10k per year minimum per child. Also you don't have to live in a deprived area to suffer from poor schools, it's what they call the postcode lottery.

My point about a high salary is to give MPs the freedom to send their kids to private schools if they so wish, so they don't have to think about getting a directorship or consultancy. Of course we want the talented people who work out of sheer civic duty, but let's be realistic about what people want from their lives. Money is normally on the list for ambitious, talented and smart people. It might not be number 1 on the list, but its often in the top ten.

shoulder_of_orion

anyway that's enough serious stuff for one day.

it is most definitely beer o'clock.

see you monday.

bigmat

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

anyway that's enough serious stuff for one day.

it is most definitely beer o'clock.

see you monday.

+1 although it'll be a glass of fine wine from my cellar for me

DonDaddyD

MatHammond wrote:

Agreed, the whole point was that maybe if there was a more competitive salary then we could do away with all these fringe benefits and allowances and have a more transparent system.

In this I agree in a more transparent system but I don't think you need to pay them any more than £60k when at least if not more than half the Nation doesn't earn that kind of money and is still able to live a decent life, drive a new car, go on 2 holidays a year, pay for private care and send their kids to private school.

If you want a competitive large salary and huge bonus, get a job in the private sector. If you have a real passion for politics and a desire to lead, benefit peoples lives and are happy to earn a modest salary become a politician. - For me is a better message.

And DDD, you say I'm being naive? You want to put your faith in there being enough people out there who feel it is their calling to staff the public sector? Look at education as an example, at the risk of being over-simplistic, the state system wouldn't be on its ars* to the degree that it is if teachers were paid enough to attract a better calibre of applicant.

So give Schools money for better facilities, give them a better regulatory body that doesn't move the goal posts every time the Government says jump. Don't just suddenly pay teachers £50k in the hope that it'll attract an Oxford graduate. FFS, the best teachers are the ones with a real desire to want to teach and help their pupils not because they earn as much as they could in the private sector.

At what point do you assess the person and who they are and not merely their desire to earn as much money as possible?

I know people who have really wanted to do it, but when they have looked into it, they have come to the conclusion that they simply couldn't afford it.

AND I know people that went to Alleyns (private school) then Uni left with 2.1's and could have got high paying jobs but decided to become teachers because they had a desire to do so beyond the money they could earn. What is your point?

And that isn't money-hungry people, just regular people with mortgages, families to support etc. etc. So we end up with principled people like you (and me) having to accept that they may have to send their kids to private school.

I would send my kids to private school if I lived in say South London because I don't want them subjected to some of the sickening social values I see shaping the next generation.

I know I wouldn't do an MP's job for £63k with the hours, commitment and press intrusion that involves, although if I was that type of character the "allowances" and non-executive directorships might just encourage me.

That's you. If I wanted to be a politician irrespective of if it paid £30, £40, £50, £60, £100etc I would become one. But then I have never been driven by money. It's fcuking money, a salary, its not a measure of a person, who they are or what they've achieved.

"Find a job you truly love and you'll never have to work another day again" - This transcends money.

DonDaddyD

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

Probably not if you earned less than £63k. Private school is expensive, £10k per year minimum per child. Also you don't have to live in a deprived area to suffer from poor schools, it's what they call the postcode lottery.

You're saying this as if I have no concept of private school or the postcode lottery .... If a childs parents want to send their kid to private school they will and the postcode lottery can be overcome.

I've seen this first had.

My point about a high salary is to give MPs the freedom to send their kids to private schools

If they did their jobs properly they wouldn't need to. Presumably the MP's spouse would also bring in money. If s/he earns the nations average that's a combined household income of £87k more than enough to send a kid to private school.

Of course we want the talented people who work out of sheer civic duty, but let's be realistic about what people want from their lives. Money is normally on the list for ambitious, talented and smart people.

I think that is an overbearing assumption. Money is a means of living life not a true motivator. - I'll stake my degree on that. The moment money becomes a primary motivator for a person then you have to question the person and whether they are the type you want running the Country.

Eau Rouge

DonDaddyD wrote:

Voting for the Lib Dems is a waste of time, its like throwing away your vote.

It's a two-horse race in the 3 constituencies around me, between the Lib Dems and the Tories. Labour are nowhere to be seen.
Works for me.

The Chingford Skinhead

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

...
My point about a high salary is to give MPs the freedom to send their kids to private schools if they so wish, so they don't have to think about getting a directorship or consultancy. ....

My point is that MPs are supposed to represent the people they serve. If they are paid a salary that lets them opt out of using the services that ordinary people have to use then they have no interest in representing us or changing the things that matter to us. If MPs HAD TO USE the same education, health and public transport as the majority of people I absolutely guarantee all three would be far far better than they are now.

I don't want MPs that are driven by money. I want MPs that are driven by a desire to improve the life of most people. They'll only do that if they have to live like most people

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

In this I agree in a more transparent system but I don't think you need to pay them any more than £60k when at least if not more than half the Nation doesn't earn that kind of money and is still able to live a decent life, drive a new car, go on 2 holidays a year, pay for private care and send their kids to private school.

If you want a competitive large salary and huge bonus, get a job in the private sector. If you have a real passion for politics and a desire to lead and benefit peoples lives and are happy to earn a modest salary become a politician. - For me is a better message.

Why do you have to be happy to earn a modest salary? Its an important job, you work your backside off, why shouldn't you be paid a slary commensurate with what you could earn in the private sector - or at least close enough to mean that people wouldn't be put off from that career path? And just because half the country earn less than £60k doesn't mean that they are all happy with that. And how many of those people are claiming benefits anyway? And I'll benefit few / none could fund a kid through private school. And probably whacking the holidays / new cars on credit which is why our economy is so screwed.

So give Schools money for better facilities, give them a better regulatory body that doesn't move the goal posts every time the Government says jump. Don't just suddenly pay teachers £50k in the hope that it'll attract a Oxford graduate. FFS, the best teachers are the ones with a real desire to want to teach and help their pupils not because they earn as much as they could in the private sector.

At what point do you assess the person and who they are and not merely their desire to earn as much money as possible?

I agree the education system needs a lot more work than just paying teacheres more money, but FFS you aren't going to get the talent in on what they are paid at the moment. And that is a MAJOR contributing factor to the deterioration in state education in this country.

AND I know people that went to Alleyns (private school) then Uni left with 2.1's and could have got high paying jobs but decided to become teachers because they had a desire to do so beyond the money they could earn. What is your point?

Maybe they didn't need the money. Maybe they liked the holidays. Maybe they wanted to teach. Good on them if they did. But why should they have to sacrifice their lifestyle to do so? Teachers I know have either moved into the private sector or rely on key worker subsidies to make ends meet - it didn't used to be that way and it shouldn't be now, and relying on the principled few isn't going to solve our problems.

That's you. If I wanted to be a politician irrespective of if it paid £30, £40, £50, £60, £100etc I would become one. But then I have never been driven by money. It's fcuking money, a salary, its not a measure of a person, who they are or what they've achieved .

I'm not driven by money. I certainly don't see it as a measure of who I am. I'm not remotely materialistic. I just think its unrealistic to expect the most talented members of society to work for a salary that is way below what they could otherwise achieve. Sure there'll be exceptions to that, but not enough.

artaxerxes

Could we not outsource our parliament to India, £63K should attract the best and brightest from among 1 billion people

The Chingford Skinhead

DonDaddyD wrote:

...

Of course we want the talented people who work out of sheer civic duty, but let's be realistic about what people want from their lives. Money is normally on the list for ambitious, talented and smart people.

I think that is an overbearing assumption. Money is a means of living life not a true motivator. - I'll stake my degree on that. The moment money becomes a primary motivator for a person then you have to question the person and whether they are the type you want running the Country.

Spot on DDD. The motivation of money is exactly why we have the trough mentality we have now. These people are already on 3x the average wage and yet seek to get even more. If you pay them more you'll simply get even more greedy people - note the pop stars and film stars and millionnaires who seek out tax havens as they can't possibly get by and pay tax! We need to attract MPs who want to serve

DonDaddyD

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

My point is that MPs are supposed to represent the people they serve. If they are paid a salary that lets them opt out of using the services that ordinary people have to use then they have no interest in representing us or changing the things that matter to us.

Clap my motherf*cking hands together!

+1

Which is my whole point that compared to the National average to the majority of people living in this Country £63k is already a lot of money.

If MPs HAD TO USE the same education, health and public transport as the majority of people I absolutely guarantee all three would be far far better than they are now.

Couldn't agree more!

I don't want MPs that are driven by money. I want MPs that are driven by a desire to improve the life of most people. They'll only do that if they have to live like most people

You win the Internet!!!!

Exactly what I've been trying to say!

Christophe3967

Greg66 wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

MPs stealing our money is inevitable, as the electorate haven't held them to account at the ballot box.

But isn't the problem more deep seated than that?.

Absolutely, and the real problem (and hopefully not New Labour's legacy) is that as people wake up to what's been happening, they may vote en masse for parties they perceive to be removed from the cosy cartel they see inhabiting Westminster. Will that be the Monster Raving Loonies? Or the BNP?

Great thread btw - and vintage DDD Campag v Shimano? Who wants to read about that stuff on a cycling forum?