Tory Minister quits over 'intolerable' salary and expenses

monkimark

airbag wrote:

Tempting as it is to rant, I can see the point - £28k a year really doesn't rent much in London.quote]

28k a year is roughly £2300 a month, that gets you a perfectly respectable 4 bed flat as long as you don't insist on being within sight of Westminster.
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/map/pro ... w_type=map

verylonglegs

airbag wrote:

And what's the point having them there for any matter where they'll just vote on party lines? None.

That's probably the most pertinent question of the whole issue of MP's spending time in Westminster, what percentage of the debates actually mean anything when they all shuffle off to vote along party line the party line anyway? It's one of the bigger flaws in the democratic setup here, at general elections we are told we are not voting for a PM but a representative MP for the constituency but everyone knows the score really due to the party whip system. They may as well stay at home and text in their votes.

tangled_metal

As nice as this all sounds an MP doesn't just debate, that's not the biggest part of the job. Front benchers have their portfolio to lead. Backbenchers sit on parliamentary committees which I'm sure you'll know have consistently increased their importance over recent years. In fact I once read a piece in a prominent newspaper arguing that Margaret Hodge was one of the most powerful MPs in light of her securing the chair of the PAC. A committee with such a wide remit it sticks its nose into virtually all matters going through the process of reaching the legal statutes.

MPs tend to sit on quite a few committees and with briefings, lobbyist briefings, special interest groupings in parliament (which includes cycling ones), etc., you get a lot out of them really. Fact finding trips to companies and other organisations too. I know how knackered I get after long runs out visiting companies for work. Boring train journey, a lot of high concentration at the company then another long journey back. Not even a nice lunch out can make up for it IMHO.

verylonglegs

Tangled Metal wrote:

Fact finding trips to companies and other organisations too. I know how knackered I get after long runs out visiting companies for work. Boring train journey, a lot of high concentration at the company then another long journey back. Not even a nice lunch out can make up for it IMHO.

You are so right you know, my eyes welled up as I read that...it's so inhumane.

airbag

Can you really call MPs executives? I wouldn't. If anything, they're... solicitors? Their job is advocate for and represent their constituency. Not to manage them.

bdu98252

Comparing MP's salaries to executives and therefore drawing the conclusion that they are underpaid is only correct if you believe that executive salaries are just. The UK would be a damn sight better off with a multiple style cap on executive salaries that were related to the lowest paid workers in the company. To put it bluntly if a company paid me a million pounds a year I would not have to ride that ticket for long before I was set for life. The required time period would be much shorter than the time taken for any of the decisions I took to either make or break the company. Most large organisations would stumble on for a few years until my brilliance or ineptitude was confirmed.

I remember a chief constable stating a while ago that he would do his job for less money and that given they recruit from the general ranks as experience is key there would be no shortage of takers for half the money. Given someone else set the pay then obviously he was happy to take the money as all of the population would be regardless of the phoney public claims. The private sector world is quite similar.

Moonbiker

How many CEOs can you think of who deliberately royally fecked things up with their firm just to put a few extra bob in their pocket then scarpered? Doesn't really happen does it?

Urm?

How about firms mis selling ppi etc?

Libor fixing

Mismangament leading to the goverments bailouts etc.

Then the golden parchutes these CEO's get when they leave.

Moonbiker

How many CEOs can you think of who deliberately royally fecked things up with their firm just to put a few extra bob in their pocket then scarpered? Doesn't really happen does it?

Urm?

How about firms mis selling ppi etc?

Libor fixing

Mismangament leading to the goverments bailouts etc.

Then the golden parchutes these CEO's get when they leave.

rick_chasey

Moonbiker wrote:

How many CEOs can you think of who deliberately royally fecked things up with their firm just to put a few extra bob in their pocket then scarpered? Doesn't really happen does it?

Urm?

How about firms mis selling ppi etc?

Libor fixing

Mismangament leading to the goverments bailouts etc.

Then the golden parchutes these CEO's get when they leave.

If you think libor fixing was something to do with the CEO you need to look into what libor fixing is.

If you dug a bit deeper you would also realise that the 'done for you big boy' stuff that went on has always gone on - just nowadays people do it electronically rather than over beers....

Richard_D

I would be much happier with MPs pay if they worked under the same sort of terms and conditions as the rest of us.
MPs seem to spend less time on Parliamentary duties than University students do at University

As for GPs earning twice as much. Not the ones I know. How many MPs have alternative jobs? From sponsorship, through Consultancy roles to Board directors. One of the Labour Health Secretaries take home went up when they lost the Ministerial job as they got more back acting as a consultant to a pharmaceutical company because of their inside knowledge.

bdu98252

madasahattersley wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Comparing MP's salaries to executives and therefore drawing the conclusion that they are underpaid is only correct if you believe that executive salaries are just. The UK would be a damn sight better off with a multiple style cap on executive salaries that were related to the lowest paid workers in the company. To put it bluntly if a company paid me a million pounds a year I would not have to ride that ticket for long before I was set for life. The required time period would be much shorter than the time taken for any of the decisions I took to either make or break the company. Most large organisations would stumble on for a few years until my brilliance or ineptitude was confirmed.

I remember a chief constable stating a while ago that he would do his job for less money and that given they recruit from the general ranks as experience is key there would be no shortage of takers for half the money. Given someone else set the pay then obviously he was happy to take the money as all of the population would be regardless of the phoney public claims. The private sector world is quite similar.

Why do you think that any kind of intervention is necessary for executive salaries? How many CEOs can you think of who deliberately royally fecked things up with their firm just to put a few extra bob in their pocket then scarpered? Doesn't really happen does it? I don't quite understand why some people think the private firms need to be manhandled so much. It seems like it's your resentment that wants a cap on those salaries, not an actual concern for the economic implications.

I believe that some form of control is required as the current disparity in pay is not healthy for society. There are many studies that shown low levels of happiness in society when there are large gaps in wealth. The UK is in this category. There are many examples of CEO's pursuing business strategies that later turn out to be poor ideas. I am not suggesting that they deliberately do this but to assume that a human being will always make the correct decision is not borne out by history. Of course I am sure that you are the exception and every personal and professional decision you have ever made has been the optimum decision and has resulted in great wealth and the fawning of others at your sheer brilliance.

pblakeney

bdu98252 wrote:

I believe that some form of control is required as the current disparity in pay is not healthy for society. There are many studies that shown low levels of happiness in society when there are large gaps in wealth. The UK is in this category. There are many examples of CEO's pursuing business strategies that later turn out to be poor ideas. I am not suggesting that they deliberately do this but to assume that a human being will always make the correct decision is not borne out by history. Of course I am sure that you are the exception and every personal and professional decision you have ever made has been the optimum decision and has resulted in great wealth and the fawning of others at your sheer brilliance.

At last!
Someone has appreciated my work.

Moonbiker

So all the CEO's were ignorant of the libor fixing going on by traders from there own banks?

Some stats on wage differentals:

Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.

So to atttract "talented" people to comapnies they need to pay there top CEO's 400 times the amount the guy at the bottom of the same comapany does?

Were companies in 1965 managed alot worse than in 2000?

bdu98252

Moonbiker wrote:

So all the CEO's were ignorant of the libor fixing going on by traders from there own banks?

Some stats on wage differentals:

Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.

So to atttract "talented" people to comapnies they need to pay there top CEO's 400 times the amount the guy at the bottom of the same comapany does?

Were companies in 1965 managed alot worse than in 2000?

If a company is doing well then the CEO is happy to make sure the world knows this is all to do with their firm grip of the tiller and thorough knowledge of the business and market alongside their obviously amazing leadership skills. When things are going badly or maybe even criminally it seems that they do not know what goes on in the business and it is a rogue group of individuals doing the dirty. Given we are paying for their brilliance then I seem to find it hard to see why they take such little responsibility for the bad things a company does or the results it posts and at 200 times the average salary everyone seems to think this is OK. Rebecca Brooks is a pretty good example of an executive who royally fucked a company up. It is OK in this instance as it was only a small part of the Murdoch empire. The Libor rate fixing scam is a pretty good example as none of the bank CEO's seemed to have a handle on this. Given their obvious talent I do have to wonder why this is?

pblakeney

bdu98252 wrote:

The Libor rate fixing scam is a pretty good example as none of the bank CEO's seemed to have a handle on this. Given their obvious talent I do have to wonder why this is?

No one is going to take the blame for a subordinate messing things up.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you dug a bit deeper you would also realise that the 'done for you big boy' stuff that went on has always gone on - just nowadays people do it electronically rather than over beers....

Cognacs dear boy, cognacs.
Beer is for the employees.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you dug a bit deeper you would also realise that the 'done for you big boy' stuff that went on has always gone on - just nowadays people do it electronically rather than over beers....

Cognacs dear boy, cognacs.
Beer is for the employees.

Exactly - over beers.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you dug a bit deeper you would also realise that the 'done for you big boy' stuff that went on has always gone on - just nowadays people do it electronically rather than over beers....

Cognacs dear boy, cognacs.
Beer is for the employees.

Exactly - over beers.

But surely that is referring to the subordinates fixing the Libor rate over beers?
I thought the main target of this thread was the big boys at the top. Those that fix things over cognac, and avoid the consequences.

airbag

Moonbiker wrote:

So all the CEO's were ignorant of the libor fixing going on by traders from there own banks?

Some stats on wage differentals:

Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.

So to atttract "talented" people to comapnies they need to pay there top CEO's 400 times the amount the guy at the bottom of the same comapany does?

Were companies in 1965 managed alot worse than in 2000?

Pro tip: label your axes.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you dug a bit deeper you would also realise that the 'done for you big boy' stuff that went on has always gone on - just nowadays people do it electronically rather than over beers....

Cognacs dear boy, cognacs.
Beer is for the employees.

Exactly - over beers.

But surely that is referring to the subordinates fixing the Libor rate over beers?
I thought the main target of this thread was the big boys at the top. Those that fix things over cognac, and avoid the consequences.

Guys at the top don't fix libor. Libor 'fixing' is usually done for specific trades or deals which are specific to certain deals.

The same in any business. The mid level guys at the commercial edge who are the ones actually making the money are usually the ones making good or bad ethical decisions. Not directed from above. The senior staff should make sure they lead a business culture which is honest and ethical so that those lower down make the right decisions, but it's too much to ask for a leader of a multiple billion company to know what each person is up to.

Not to say all leaders are ignorant - only need to look at Enron - but just because you lead doesn't mean you're directly involved.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Guys at the top don't fix libor. Libor 'fixing' is usually done for specific trades or deals which are specific to certain deals.

The same in any business. The mid level guys at the commercial edge who are the ones actually making the money are usually the ones making good or bad ethical decisions. Not directed from above. The senior staff should make sure they lead a business culture which is honest and ethical so that those lower down make the right decisions, but it's too much to ask for a leader of a multiple billion company to know what each person is up to.

Not to say all leaders are ignorant - only need to look at Enron - but just because you lead doesn't mean you're directly involved.

Ah. The ignorance defence.
Yes it usually is quite effective in our current system. Serves us well.

bdu98252

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Guys at the top don't fix libor. Libor 'fixing' is usually done for specific trades or deals which are specific to certain deals.

The same in any business. The mid level guys at the commercial edge who are the ones actually making the money are usually the ones making good or bad ethical decisions. Not directed from above. The senior staff should make sure they lead a business culture which is honest and ethical so that those lower down make the right decisions, but it's too much to ask for a leader of a multiple billion company to know what each person is up to.

Not to say all leaders are ignorant - only need to look at Enron - but just because you lead doesn't mean you're directly involved.

Ah. The ignorance defence.
Yes it usually is quite effective in our current system. Serves us well.

This leads us back neatly to the point that you probably don't need to pay them 200 times the lowest company salary as after all they don't know what the individuals within the company do and it seems those are the guys making the boss his money.

pblakeney

bdu98252 wrote:

This leads us back neatly to the point that you probably don't need to pay them 200 times the lowest company salary as after all they don't know what the individuals within the company do and it seems those are the guys making the boss his money.

This point will never be fully addressed to your satisfaction as you don't pay them anything.

bdu98252

PBlakeney wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

This leads us back neatly to the point that you probably don't need to pay them 200 times the lowest company salary as after all they don't know what the individuals within the company do and it seems those are the guys making the boss his money.

This point will never be fully addressed to your satisfaction as you don't pay them anything.

Thanks for the selective quoting that turns the words written into a totally different meaning. The company pays their wages out of its turnover which hopefully includes some profit. If we assume that the company is owned by shareholders then the shareholders are the one who pay the CEO's wages. What you tend to find is that companies on this ownership model have higher wages for top people than companies on other ownership systems. This is because shareholders are in the main large institutional investors who are quite often are led by people paid these sort of sums as well so think it is normal to be paid 200 times the salary of the lowest earner.

pblakeney

bdu98252 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

This leads us back neatly to the point that you probably don't need to pay them 200 times the lowest company salary as after all they don't know what the individuals within the company do and it seems those are the guys making the boss his money.

This point will never be fully addressed to your satisfaction as you don't pay them anything.

Thanks for the selective quoting that turns the words written into a totally different meaning. The company pays their wages out of its turnover which hopefully includes some profit. If we assume that the company is owned by shareholders then the shareholders are the one who pay the CEO's wages. What you tend to find is that companies on this ownership model have higher wages for top people than companies on other ownership systems. This is because shareholders are in the main large institutional investors who are quite often are led by people paid these sort of sums as well so think it is normal to be paid 200 times the salary of the lowest earner.

No cutting of anything this time so that nothing can get lost in translation.
CEO's wages are proposed and either accepted or rejected by the shareholders, as you said.
Those shareholders are in the main large institutions, as you said.
You are not a large institution and therefore you do not pay their wages, as I said.

We quite possibly agree on how the system works but not on the wording, nor the principal.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Guys at the top don't fix libor. Libor 'fixing' is usually done for specific trades or deals which are specific to certain deals.

The same in any business. The mid level guys at the commercial edge who are the ones actually making the money are usually the ones making good or bad ethical decisions. Not directed from above. The senior staff should make sure they lead a business culture which is honest and ethical so that those lower down make the right decisions, but it's too much to ask for a leader of a multiple billion company to know what each person is up to.

Not to say all leaders are ignorant - only need to look at Enron - but just because you lead doesn't mean you're directly involved.

Ah. The ignorance defence.
Yes it usually is quite effective in our current system. Serves us well.

Let's give some context. Barclays employ 139,000 people globally. HSBC employ 330,000.

In that type of business your CEO cannot know what everyone is doing.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Let's give some context. Barclays employ 139,000 people globally. HSBC employ 330,000.

In that type of business your CEO cannot know what everyone is doing.

Obviously not as most seem to spend their time on social media or internet boards.
That does not mean that they didn't have any idea of what was occurring within the banking system.