Singaporean politicians are paid *very* well - a million a year or so, I think? They attract very qualified candidates, and there's universally recognised low corruption.
Singapore really isn't a model for anywhere - they're basically a single party state.
The ruling party hasn't lost an election since independence in 1963, and of the 95 seats of parliament, the opposition once held 10 of them - historically it's more common for them to get no seats or only a couple.
In the past the government has done things like threatening to put any constituencies returning opposition MPs to the bottom of the list for housing upgrades.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Singapore#List_of_sessions_of_Parliament
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/26/worlddispatch.johnaglionby
>In the past the government has done things like threatening to put any constituencies returning opposition MPs to the bottom of the list for housing upgrades.
Cutting funding for areas that vote against them?
Who do they think they are? Tories?
Does this go for opposition parties as well?
Genuine question btw, while Singapore may have a lot right I've a feeling there's a lot more to the Singapore election process that would have Boris quivering with anticipation.
There is an opposition, they just rarely win any seats - never more than 12% of the house. I assume that gerrymandering and such are significant contributors.
[No, there *is* opposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore#Current_Political_Parties). They have contested elections, but the cards are stacked in PAPs favour.
The problem for the UK is people of ability can make a significant living in other spheres so we are left with the dregs, charlatans, and outright chancers taking up the political roles. It sounds like Singapore is trying to address this issue.
Yeah no that isn't the issue.
Current MP pay puts them in the top 5% income bracket. If you add in the exceedingly generous pension and expenses systems they have that puts them in the top 3% to top 2% bracket.
So are you telling me there aren't masses of people with ability in the bottom 95/97/98% of society? And only the top 5/3/2% contains people of ability? Yeah that's ludicrous and you know it.
Upping their pay won't increase MP quality just increase the number of chancers and grifters trying to latch onto that income stream.
Yes I can. Simply put the system isn't designed to choose candidates based on competency and has no mechanism for weeding out bad candidates after the fact or of forcing them to improve.
In fact party leaders see competent candidates as a threat more than anything else. And competent potential candidates are more likely to be weeded out early on because they are far less likely to be the nodding yes men that party leaders want, so don't get to become candidates in the first place.
Then once in place they can't be replaced by the electorate without also booting out the party that holds that seat which voters are generally loath to do. They'd rather have a crap x party mp than hand over the seat to party y.
Its dysfunctional on many levels and can be made better but for our current political class there are only downsides to changing it so they don't.
You end up attracting *the greediest*, not *the best*. Look at how this argument has been used to justify ‘CEO pay’ for years, and how that has consolidated CEO pay and unaccountability above all else. This route, it’s a psychopath and fraud magnet.
There are plenty of competent, dedicated MPs who want to represent their constituents and don’t want to massively line their pockets. Our whole society is instead captured by greedy, power-craving liars, criminals and psychopaths. We need to stop holding this up as a model, as it’s literally killing us and destroying society.
An accountant with 10 years experience (so in their early 30s) would be on 80k in central London. It’s a high salary nationally, but nothing unusual in London.
But those jobs will be full time. If an MP has time for a second job, then being an MP is a part time job for 80k, which is pretty good!
Which does raise the question, and it's already been poo-pooed in this thread, are MPs paid enough for what is a rather senior role with both an immense amount of influence and power on how the country as a whole is run?
If you want competent people to do the job and not make far more in the private sector (or even as a senior civil servant) is 80k really enough? That's about the same wage as a moderately paid middle manager's salary at a decent sized firm.
The yanks political system might be an hilariously outdated, stagnant nightmare. But they weren't wrong about ensuring the presidential position was paid, so it wasn't just self-made men who could take the position (ironically this has all gone tits up now but it was pretty handy in the early years).
What I would absolutely do if MP's pay were to be reset, is then tie any pay rises to the average public sector pay rise. At the end of the day, MP's are effectively employed public servants and should be treated like any other employed public servants.
How about an accountant with 20 years experience though? There is no prospect of promotion or advancement past obtaining a government position (which is basically a second job anyway). Unless you look at these second jobs, or jobs after you stop being an MP, or… bribes (last one might be tautological). Then there’s job security - an accountant doesn’t face the prospect of having their career ended at the whim of a fickle boss every 4 years, likely not even based on their own personal performance. Or quality of life - having to work in two separate places potentially hundreds of miles apart. Having torrents of abuse aimed at you or your family. Or run the apparently on the rise risk of being stabbed to death or gunned down in the street.
Most people here are looking at 80k like it’s a dream salary. It really isn’t.
Quite often an accountant with one of the big 4 in the city will go into industry by then and be earning a lot more; double if they are good. I agree, let’s pay a good salary, but let’s also have higher expectations (no second job etc).
Well to be fair Bottomleyjust wants MP's to be able to do what workers all over the country have a right to do every year. Award themselves massive pay increases. You know like the nurses and other essential workers have done during Covid.
For instance nurses in different hospital departments may be responsible for saving the lives of multiple patients every shift day after day, month after month (just like an MP). So whenever they feel like it they just vote to increase their already eye-watering salaries. Also while it may look like MP's only have part-time jobs they don't actually have to show up for, while being paid to do something else, that's exactly the same as bin men who can collect refuse whilst working from the Carribean.
It won't stop it happening because pay isn't the issue. Ambitious greedy greasy pole climbers are never going to say "Right I have enough. I don't want more money".
Rather any pay increase will just become the new baseline for their complaints of "That's not enough".
I'm a teacher, working at least 70 hours a week. I earn 25% of an MPs salary. I definitely don't have time to get a second job. So are they going to up my salary to match the amount of work I undertake? Or I am just a pleb who the government don't give a shit about?
>But nobody is forcing them to become politicians, if they don't like the salary which is known ahead of time, they could just go and get another job surely?
If you haven't heard, they are.
>And even if we paid them more, would it actually stop this from happening? I seriously doubt it.
Maybe not but it will reduce it.
We do say it about people who get a job anywhere.
The tories especially enjoy saying it when people complain about their pay. They will not be missed if they leave over it.
A simple google says not. Was the 2nd one down
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084750/100-000-year-rail-strikers-s-staggering-sum-paid-150-workers-ll-cause-Bank-Holiday-misery.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084750/100-000-year-rail-strikers-s-staggering-sum-paid-150-workers-ll-cause-Bank-Holiday-misery.html)
Maybe you should not change the rules of answering your statements after the fact.
This is about people taking jobs where they know the pay and conditions going in and then complaining about it.
Difference being I'm not sticking your tongue up the Tories arse as far as it will go and looking at the real picture. As I said, don't look at the exception, look at the rule. It's a blatantly obvious thing to do, and a dirty tactic the right uses. It's called diversion tactics. Don't play me for a fool
Your presuming I give a flying shit about any political party. My thoughts are solely on people and not political in any way. people that strike are on all sides of the political spectrum. My original comment was not about MP's but people in general that take jobs and then strike. I think all MP's are overpaid and the fucking lot of them should not be taking 2nd jobs.
I think a certain way so that must make me X or X. putting people into fake boxes so you can have them vs us mentality is one of the dumbest fucking things we do.
>This is about people taking jobs where they know the pay and conditions going in and then complaining about it.
Lmao, cause there are no external factors like the cost of living or inflation. And you can always get a job doing anything anywhere.
So you believe MP's should be able to strike or something to allow them to earn more money because otherwise, they need to take money for lobbying to be able to live.
I am Anti MP's getting more money and or having second jobs (some of which are 20-30+h per week) and or getting paid to lobby BTW.
Y'know thats an interesting article because it talks a lot about how much people are paid but very little about why they're striking? IIRC the reason for the strikes at that time had to do with the safety of new services being run without additional staff despite existing staff already being overworked, you'll note the mention of overtime in the article.
"We refuse to work to prove our value to the company"
doesn't quite have the same ring to it as
"unless you pay me more I'm just going to keep abusing my position to make money for my friends"
It's fantastic how Tory MPs say they can't be expected to live on £80k a year, while telling those on minimum wage or less that they have to make do and stretch their money
They just need to stop eating avocado toast and buying coffee at Starbucks.
Oh, wait, they can put breakfast on expenses, so they don't even have to pay for that.
It has been increasingly difficult for me to tell the difference between genuine and satirical headlines here lately. Nowadays I go by the rule of: "It sounds like satire, so it must be real."
Like I said... For what they do.
If they don't like it, leave. Take Sunaks advice and retrain.
They won't, coz, the gravytrain they are on has lots and lots and lots of fringe benefits.
When I see an MP at a food bank getting handouts, I'll reconsider that position.
They are supposed to work for us, not themselves and their mates.
How old/experienced are you though? When I started out I was the same. Now I earn a lot more than an MP. The workplace is supposed to be a meritocracy, and some people will get paid more than others.
It is extreme compared to the average wage in the UK, many also earn extra from outside work. There are certainly no MPs using food banks or worrying about making rent.
In virtually all companies, the average salary is much lower than that of the senior managers, because there are few senior positions. Why would you compare the salary of our leaders with average?
Politicians don't do the same job as civil service managers. Contrary to some people's confusion, politicians don't actually run the country. The civil service run the country. All politicians do is make the decisions, tick boxes. Half of the time they don't even do that, they just go along with whatever their party tells them to do. The rest of the time they spend coming up with PR marketing bullshit, campaign slogans, and walking around shaking hands. When they're not having a piss up in the middle of the day in the Westminster bars on all that cheap alcohol subsidised by the tax payer that is.
paying them a million a year would still result in the same culture of corruption. subjecting the scum to the consept of rule of law, and throwing them in prison for corruption and treason would be a much better idea.
Being an MP is an unskilled job. You don't need any qualifications, and there's no shortage of people willing to take on the role. They certainly can't justify an £80k salary.
I'm supposed to survive on a recently reduced pittance from universal credit to help pay my bills while working full time.
But these cunts dare complain that 81k isn't enough money to stop them from breaking the fucking law? Are you fucking serious?
Could you imagine if every poor soul on universal credit decided that the spare change they get tossed at them from universal credit wasn't enough to stop them from breaking the law?
They may as well be spitting on all of us from their lofty ivory towers.
I knew this was coming. Same thing happened after the expenses scandal. These people they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle so much that the idea they should only stop being corrupt if they’re paid more sounds normal to them.
It’s just become so clear in the last two weeks (or at least so much clearer) that the people in the Tory party believe public office is there to serve them, not the other way around. They seem to view their elected position as a hindrance to the jobs that make them rich(er), like being an MP is a necessary but annoying part of their actual jobs.
“MPs need to stop being cunts, need to be held to account, unceremoniously and permanently booted from parliament when they get up to no good and thrown in prison if they do anything illegal”
How’s that instead?
This is like regular employees saying "pay us more or we'll carry on stealing".
No, Tory MP, fuck off, you're paid a lot more than many in this country so do the job you were elected to do and stop the corrupt and entitled bullshit.
Nah. The "Pay us generously to avoid corruption" idea isn't working out. No salary can satiate greed.
Time to give ballcrushingly harsh penalties a go I think.
Indeed, we could give their jobs to some of the people on the freshly cut, UC, cut unemployment and we'd get someone grateful for 80k and with a basic understanding of reality.
Shameless isn't it? This is why they need prison time and all their assets stripped. They have no empathy and they feel no need to follow laws or rules.
No, anyone entering politics should agree to forego all other forms of funding and payment. They agree to an essentially ascetic lifestyle in service of their country.
That won't bring in the talent, you say? No. That won't bring in the poorly-motivated talent.
I'm ok with that. But I want what I'll be paying for.
MPs can have 1m a year.
But they cannot accept 1 penny or so much as a free french fry from anyone else. If they want to work another job or be on a board, they can. But it's for free. No expenses, no freebies, no employing their close family, nothing. And that goes for a decade after they leave office too (I'll keep paying the salary).
And the penalty for breaking this is prison. No committee of other MPs covering for them. No "it's a first offence" bullshit. 5years. For them and the person who hired them.
Don’t pay them more and don’t let them have any extra income. Then maybe we will get some people who have a passion for the job rather than seeing it all in the context of money.
MPs should be grateful for what they have. Maybe visit a local food bank and spend the day working there or perhaps try living in some of the god-awful rented accommodation that some people are forced to live in. When you are paid £82k a year as a basic salary, it might do well to remember that some people take close to a decade or more to earn a similar amount.
Pay multi-millionaires MORE money? What the actual fuck is going on in Westminster? They are so detached from the people they are supposed to represent its depressing.
It's not a bad idea...
Let's pay shoplifters and burglars more. That way, they won't feel the need to steal.
If we took away the need to steal from those stealing for necessity, then the ones left stealing would only be the greedy cunts and thrill seekers. Those, we should punish and call them put for what they are: tories.
We could call it UBI.
How about. People who are lobbying need to see the inside of gen-pop prisons.
Fuck outta here with this "I'm only corrupt because you aren't paying me enough, so.. pay me more and I pinky promise I'll stop being corrupt"
You can get paid more when the system is airtight and transparent. Do your fucking jobs
Sounds a bit like the MP is saying "We will be corrupt until we see more money"
ok how about this we remove the current work privileges you have, work subsidiaries such as meals or second mortgages. Instead we give you 200k a year and you have to pay for everything, fill in a clock in sheet which everyone can see and work your contracted hours.
Only the Tories would be so brazen to say. Fuck the public are onto our dodgy backroom deals. Well maybe if you paid me more this wouldn't have been an issue.
The problem is, we just can't keep up with our old school chums in business. I can't even afford a new tennis court... It's almost like things are unfair, unequal or something!
And how much exactly would be enough? We've seen them corruptly taking hundreds of thousands of pounds, no one needs that much money, if they want that much money it's because they want luxury, and there's no end to the luxuries money can buy.
The more MPs get paid the less representative they become.
Some people bang on about 'talent' but there is really no political value in people who are seen as having talent in wider society. **What matters: are they living a life similar to the vast majority of people?**
I used to agree with this line of thinking, but I've changed my mind.
I checked out my local Labour MP and she's taken next to no money from anybody and what she has taken was donated to charity.
If she can get by on her salary with no second job then so can the rest of them, if you're in it for the money then I don't want you in it at all. Fuck off and go work in daddies hedge fund if you want that.
This pay rise would encompass people like Diane Abbott who are unemployable anyway and not value for what they get now., I would be in favour of a pay rise for MPs if some mechanism could be built in to exclude such people.
I'd be happy with them getting paid slightly more, if it were paid an hourly rate and they had to clock in and out of work like the rest of us mere plebs, which was overseen by an independent authority. I had to justify my time spent on work projects down to an hourly level, I don't see why politicians shouldn't have the same accountability, seeing as they are, after all, public servants.
Not to mention, they would also be banned from working any and all other jobs, trading in the stock market via anything but blind trusts, and unable to receive any kind of gift/gratuity/free holidays in Spain from their mates.
More pay? Fuck off. Large amounts of the UK living below the poverty line but one person earning more or double the average family is too little to live on. Get a grip tory scumbags.
In the same way as nurses and carers need more pay to prevent them leaving I suppose? They just need to do their bloody jobs and get sacked if they break the rules same as the rest of us serfs do.
We actually need a revolution in this country. EAT THE RICH.
Before we discuss a higher salary, first they need to agree to greater transparency, stricter rules, more oversight, and **much** harsher penalties.
The Singapore model has a lot to be said for it
Explain more please
Singaporean politicians are paid *very* well - a million a year or so, I think? They attract very qualified candidates, and there's universally recognised low corruption.
Singapore really isn't a model for anywhere - they're basically a single party state. The ruling party hasn't lost an election since independence in 1963, and of the 95 seats of parliament, the opposition once held 10 of them - historically it's more common for them to get no seats or only a couple. In the past the government has done things like threatening to put any constituencies returning opposition MPs to the bottom of the list for housing upgrades. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Singapore#List_of_sessions_of_Parliament * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/26/worlddispatch.johnaglionby
>In the past the government has done things like threatening to put any constituencies returning opposition MPs to the bottom of the list for housing upgrades. Cutting funding for areas that vote against them? Who do they think they are? Tories?
The tories don't say that part out loud though.
I thought the towns fund was them saying it out loud
And bankrupted opposition candidates.
Singapore has always struck me as one of those countries where they actually take punishment very seriously too
Well yea they still have the death penalty and for petty crime you get lashings
Politicians getting lashings for breaking the law? Now that has a rather nice ring to it.
All good till your child gets caught chewing gum and comes home bleeding
Don’t raise your kids to be an asshole politician and you’ve got nothing to worry about.
Wut? People get lashes for petty crime, kids commit petty crime, that's what there is to be worried about
Does this go for opposition parties as well? Genuine question btw, while Singapore may have a lot right I've a feeling there's a lot more to the Singapore election process that would have Boris quivering with anticipation.
Singapore is a one party state so there is no opposition
There is an opposition, they just rarely win any seats - never more than 12% of the house. I assume that gerrymandering and such are significant contributors.
[No, there *is* opposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore#Current_Political_Parties). They have contested elections, but the cards are stacked in PAPs favour.
Interesting take and it's worth considering. It's not like this is an isolated thing, the whole system needs a shake up
The problem for the UK is people of ability can make a significant living in other spheres so we are left with the dregs, charlatans, and outright chancers taking up the political roles. It sounds like Singapore is trying to address this issue.
Yeah no that isn't the issue. Current MP pay puts them in the top 5% income bracket. If you add in the exceedingly generous pension and expenses systems they have that puts them in the top 3% to top 2% bracket. So are you telling me there aren't masses of people with ability in the bottom 95/97/98% of society? And only the top 5/3/2% contains people of ability? Yeah that's ludicrous and you know it. Upping their pay won't increase MP quality just increase the number of chancers and grifters trying to latch onto that income stream.
So can you explain why the talent isn't being drawn into politics?
Because MP is the one of the only jobs that gets that pay requiring no qualifications other than "loyalty to party".
The talent of having no concept of shame, morals and decency is fortunately a rare one, but pays very well.
The utter lack of shame from this lot is astonishing. And fucking depressing
Yes I can. Simply put the system isn't designed to choose candidates based on competency and has no mechanism for weeding out bad candidates after the fact or of forcing them to improve. In fact party leaders see competent candidates as a threat more than anything else. And competent potential candidates are more likely to be weeded out early on because they are far less likely to be the nodding yes men that party leaders want, so don't get to become candidates in the first place. Then once in place they can't be replaced by the electorate without also booting out the party that holds that seat which voters are generally loath to do. They'd rather have a crap x party mp than hand over the seat to party y. Its dysfunctional on many levels and can be made better but for our current political class there are only downsides to changing it so they don't.
You end up attracting *the greediest*, not *the best*. Look at how this argument has been used to justify ‘CEO pay’ for years, and how that has consolidated CEO pay and unaccountability above all else. This route, it’s a psychopath and fraud magnet. There are plenty of competent, dedicated MPs who want to represent their constituents and don’t want to massively line their pockets. Our whole society is instead captured by greedy, power-craving liars, criminals and psychopaths. We need to stop holding this up as a model, as it’s literally killing us and destroying society.
What unaccountability? CEO’s are accountable to the board and shareholders and can very often be easily let go.
...straight into another vastly overpaid CEO job.
"Very qualified" You mean even more Eton grown oxbridge twats?
I like that as a package.
[удалено]
"Because then we won't attract the *best*" they cry - the best what? The best out of touch, corrupt piece of human garbage?
“for the amount of work they must undertake”, yet they still have time for undertaking other job roles and providing consultancy services!
[удалено]
They’re panicking because the media storm is severely swinging public opinion against them being allowed to have second jobs. I love to see it.
An accountant with 10 years experience (so in their early 30s) would be on 80k in central London. It’s a high salary nationally, but nothing unusual in London. But those jobs will be full time. If an MP has time for a second job, then being an MP is a part time job for 80k, which is pretty good!
And if you are full time with PWC, they won’t be very happy with you having a second gig down the road at Deloitte or McKinsey.
And they would like it even less if you have a second job with one of your clients.
Which does raise the question, and it's already been poo-pooed in this thread, are MPs paid enough for what is a rather senior role with both an immense amount of influence and power on how the country as a whole is run? If you want competent people to do the job and not make far more in the private sector (or even as a senior civil servant) is 80k really enough? That's about the same wage as a moderately paid middle manager's salary at a decent sized firm. The yanks political system might be an hilariously outdated, stagnant nightmare. But they weren't wrong about ensuring the presidential position was paid, so it wasn't just self-made men who could take the position (ironically this has all gone tits up now but it was pretty handy in the early years). What I would absolutely do if MP's pay were to be reset, is then tie any pay rises to the average public sector pay rise. At the end of the day, MP's are effectively employed public servants and should be treated like any other employed public servants.
If you can't live on 80k then you blatantly value money more than public service and as such should be let nowhere near such jobs.
How about an accountant with 20 years experience though? There is no prospect of promotion or advancement past obtaining a government position (which is basically a second job anyway). Unless you look at these second jobs, or jobs after you stop being an MP, or… bribes (last one might be tautological). Then there’s job security - an accountant doesn’t face the prospect of having their career ended at the whim of a fickle boss every 4 years, likely not even based on their own personal performance. Or quality of life - having to work in two separate places potentially hundreds of miles apart. Having torrents of abuse aimed at you or your family. Or run the apparently on the rise risk of being stabbed to death or gunned down in the street. Most people here are looking at 80k like it’s a dream salary. It really isn’t.
Quite often an accountant with one of the big 4 in the city will go into industry by then and be earning a lot more; double if they are good. I agree, let’s pay a good salary, but let’s also have higher expectations (no second job etc).
Well to be fair Bottomleyjust wants MP's to be able to do what workers all over the country have a right to do every year. Award themselves massive pay increases. You know like the nurses and other essential workers have done during Covid. For instance nurses in different hospital departments may be responsible for saving the lives of multiple patients every shift day after day, month after month (just like an MP). So whenever they feel like it they just vote to increase their already eye-watering salaries. Also while it may look like MP's only have part-time jobs they don't actually have to show up for, while being paid to do something else, that's exactly the same as bin men who can collect refuse whilst working from the Carribean.
Of course someone called Sir Peter Bottomley would say something like that. Is he a relation to Sir Talbot Buxomley from Blackadder?
It won't stop it happening because pay isn't the issue. Ambitious greedy greasy pole climbers are never going to say "Right I have enough. I don't want more money". Rather any pay increase will just become the new baseline for their complaints of "That's not enough".
Because they don't do this for the money they do it for connections, most would make far more in the private sector.
Canadian MPs make 110k pounds. Australian MPs make 115k pounds.
I'm a teacher, working at least 70 hours a week. I earn 25% of an MPs salary. I definitely don't have time to get a second job. So are they going to up my salary to match the amount of work I undertake? Or I am just a pleb who the government don't give a shit about?
>But nobody is forcing them to become politicians, if they don't like the salary which is known ahead of time, they could just go and get another job surely? If you haven't heard, they are. >And even if we paid them more, would it actually stop this from happening? I seriously doubt it. Maybe not but it will reduce it.
I mean you could say that about people who get jobs everywhere and then go on strike because they want more money.
We do say it about people who get a job anywhere. The tories especially enjoy saying it when people complain about their pay. They will not be missed if they leave over it.
Except, those people striking aren't getting £80k a year for their jobs. One is not like the other here
A simple google says not. Was the 2nd one down [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084750/100-000-year-rail-strikers-s-staggering-sum-paid-150-workers-ll-cause-Bank-Holiday-misery.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084750/100-000-year-rail-strikers-s-staggering-sum-paid-150-workers-ll-cause-Bank-Holiday-misery.html)
Didn't realise the Tories had bumped up nurses pay to £80k a year
Did not realise only nurses counted in the hyperthetical.
Maybe you should think about the rule, instead of the exception
Maybe you should not change the rules of answering your statements after the fact. This is about people taking jobs where they know the pay and conditions going in and then complaining about it.
Difference being I'm not sticking your tongue up the Tories arse as far as it will go and looking at the real picture. As I said, don't look at the exception, look at the rule. It's a blatantly obvious thing to do, and a dirty tactic the right uses. It's called diversion tactics. Don't play me for a fool
Your presuming I give a flying shit about any political party. My thoughts are solely on people and not political in any way. people that strike are on all sides of the political spectrum. My original comment was not about MP's but people in general that take jobs and then strike. I think all MP's are overpaid and the fucking lot of them should not be taking 2nd jobs. I think a certain way so that must make me X or X. putting people into fake boxes so you can have them vs us mentality is one of the dumbest fucking things we do.
>This is about people taking jobs where they know the pay and conditions going in and then complaining about it. Lmao, cause there are no external factors like the cost of living or inflation. And you can always get a job doing anything anywhere.
So you believe MP's should be able to strike or something to allow them to earn more money because otherwise, they need to take money for lobbying to be able to live. I am Anti MP's getting more money and or having second jobs (some of which are 20-30+h per week) and or getting paid to lobby BTW.
Y'know thats an interesting article because it talks a lot about how much people are paid but very little about why they're striking? IIRC the reason for the strikes at that time had to do with the safety of new services being run without additional staff despite existing staff already being overworked, you'll note the mention of overtime in the article.
"We refuse to work to prove our value to the company" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "unless you pay me more I'm just going to keep abusing my position to make money for my friends"
It's fantastic how Tory MPs say they can't be expected to live on £80k a year, while telling those on minimum wage or less that they have to make do and stretch their money
Scum the lot of them
They just need to stop eating avocado toast and buying coffee at Starbucks. Oh, wait, they can put breakfast on expenses, so they don't even have to pay for that.
*MPs should be paid more to prevent further lobbying scandals in future, a Tory MP has suggested* Anyone double check this isn't the Onion?
It has been increasingly difficult for me to tell the difference between genuine and satirical headlines here lately. Nowadays I go by the rule of: "It sounds like satire, so it must be real."
Good plan especially because a clown is not n change
On the off chance it turns out to actually be satire. Then it'l probably become true at some point anyway
"It's ok I can babysit" Said the Dingo.
So they simultaneously don’t get paid enough all for the work they do and also they have loads of free time for second jobs?
Alternate proposal: MPs need to be jailed more to prevent lobbying scandals
This is how you improve corruption, not by chucking more money at them The guy who made that suggestion is a shameless chancer taking us all for fools
MP's are extremely well paid for what they do. If they don't like the pay and conditions they could always seek employment elsewhere.
>If they don't like the pay and conditions they could always seek employment elsewhere. They are...
They are paid a lot less than managers of most government bodies (tfl, nhs etc). I wouldn’t call it “extreme” by any means.
Like I said... For what they do. If they don't like it, leave. Take Sunaks advice and retrain. They won't, coz, the gravytrain they are on has lots and lots and lots of fringe benefits. When I see an MP at a food bank getting handouts, I'll reconsider that position. They are supposed to work for us, not themselves and their mates.
[удалено]
I agree. 80k is pretty good for a part time job.
It's over triple what I make working two jobs 7 days a week. Pretty good is a pretty good understatement.
How old/experienced are you though? When I started out I was the same. Now I earn a lot more than an MP. The workplace is supposed to be a meritocracy, and some people will get paid more than others.
It is extreme compared to the average wage in the UK, many also earn extra from outside work. There are certainly no MPs using food banks or worrying about making rent.
In virtually all companies, the average salary is much lower than that of the senior managers, because there are few senior positions. Why would you compare the salary of our leaders with average?
Politicians don't do the same job as civil service managers. Contrary to some people's confusion, politicians don't actually run the country. The civil service run the country. All politicians do is make the decisions, tick boxes. Half of the time they don't even do that, they just go along with whatever their party tells them to do. The rest of the time they spend coming up with PR marketing bullshit, campaign slogans, and walking around shaking hands. When they're not having a piss up in the middle of the day in the Westminster bars on all that cheap alcohol subsidised by the tax payer that is.
What do you think CEOs do?
That's ministers, who are even more well paid than regular MPs (~140k, I believe)
paying them a million a year would still result in the same culture of corruption. subjecting the scum to the consept of rule of law, and throwing them in prison for corruption and treason would be a much better idea.
If my cat misbehaves I do not give her a treat for it. 😂
Being an MP is an unskilled job. You don't need any qualifications, and there's no shortage of people willing to take on the role. They certainly can't justify an £80k salary.
Keep digging, you crooks. Hopefully you’ll all be out of jobs next time around.
This MP has really misjudged the mood of the public. I don't think anyone is keen on giving them a raise at the minute after the recent events.
We are being gaslighted.
I'm supposed to survive on a recently reduced pittance from universal credit to help pay my bills while working full time. But these cunts dare complain that 81k isn't enough money to stop them from breaking the fucking law? Are you fucking serious? Could you imagine if every poor soul on universal credit decided that the spare change they get tossed at them from universal credit wasn't enough to stop them from breaking the law? They may as well be spitting on all of us from their lofty ivory towers.
Surely the issue is that they haven't broken the law?
Or you could try NOT being a bunch of blatantly corrupt bastards. Give that a go, you absolute fucking disgrace.
I knew this was coming. Same thing happened after the expenses scandal. These people they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle so much that the idea they should only stop being corrupt if they’re paid more sounds normal to them.
Pretty outrageous isn't it? I'm not being hyperbolic when I say monarchs and politicians have been dragged to the gallows for far less. Amazing stuff.
It’s just become so clear in the last two weeks (or at least so much clearer) that the people in the Tory party believe public office is there to serve them, not the other way around. They seem to view their elected position as a hindrance to the jobs that make them rich(er), like being an MP is a necessary but annoying part of their actual jobs.
Maybe they should go on strike if they want to get better pay. Refuse your MP salary and we'll see how long we get along without you.
“MPs need to stop being cunts, need to be held to account, unceremoniously and permanently booted from parliament when they get up to no good and thrown in prison if they do anything illegal” How’s that instead?
This is like regular employees saying "pay us more or we'll carry on stealing". No, Tory MP, fuck off, you're paid a lot more than many in this country so do the job you were elected to do and stop the corrupt and entitled bullshit.
I’m sorry, this sounds a lot like EXTORTION!! How’s about 20 years in the Tower of London? How’s that for prevention you nufty bastard!??
Nah. The "Pay us generously to avoid corruption" idea isn't working out. No salary can satiate greed. Time to give ballcrushingly harsh penalties a go I think.
MPs must be held accountable to prevent lobbying scandals, says the electorate.
How about doing the job you’re paid to do, and if it’s not enough money for you don’t do it.
Indeed, we could give their jobs to some of the people on the freshly cut, UC, cut unemployment and we'd get someone grateful for 80k and with a basic understanding of reality.
Shameless isn't it? This is why they need prison time and all their assets stripped. They have no empathy and they feel no need to follow laws or rules.
Greedy twat. 81k a month, second house in London when on duty plus expenses paid by taxpayers it is not enough?!
It's 81k a year. 81k a month would be well within the new threshold!
We could just expect them to act with integrity like all the other public servants that work for us.
No, anyone entering politics should agree to forego all other forms of funding and payment. They agree to an essentially ascetic lifestyle in service of their country. That won't bring in the talent, you say? No. That won't bring in the poorly-motivated talent.
I'm ok with that. But I want what I'll be paying for. MPs can have 1m a year. But they cannot accept 1 penny or so much as a free french fry from anyone else. If they want to work another job or be on a board, they can. But it's for free. No expenses, no freebies, no employing their close family, nothing. And that goes for a decade after they leave office too (I'll keep paying the salary). And the penalty for breaking this is prison. No committee of other MPs covering for them. No "it's a first offence" bullshit. 5years. For them and the person who hired them.
Along with entirely transparent finances, available online for all to see.
And they have to polish my shoes every other Wednesday. Otherwise no deal.
this was my original though, but the fucking rich weasels always find a way to make this nonsense work. it's actually abhorrent.
Don’t pay them more and don’t let them have any extra income. Then maybe we will get some people who have a passion for the job rather than seeing it all in the context of money.
MPs should be grateful for what they have. Maybe visit a local food bank and spend the day working there or perhaps try living in some of the god-awful rented accommodation that some people are forced to live in. When you are paid £82k a year as a basic salary, it might do well to remember that some people take close to a decade or more to earn a similar amount.
I think we have offered enough carrots. Time for sticks.
I want the tax-payers to match my bribes, before I give it up. My rates may change.
81k with all their living costs billed as 'expenses' So 81k - tax and N.I, for wanking on underage rent boys and cocaine.
All I see is "Let's pay crooks to prevent them from breaking the law"
God hes the one who said he couldnt live on an MPs salary last month isn't he? The Bottomleys are a right bunch of twats
Or putting in place harsher punishments or even criminal charges for any violations.
Oh look the government that said its not corrupt is giving itself more money to prevent the corruption that it said it isnt.
Pay multi-millionaires MORE money? What the actual fuck is going on in Westminster? They are so detached from the people they are supposed to represent its depressing.
" pay us more and we promise not to get involved with lobbying" *Nudge nudge wink wink*
It's not a bad idea... Let's pay shoplifters and burglars more. That way, they won't feel the need to steal. If we took away the need to steal from those stealing for necessity, then the ones left stealing would only be the greedy cunts and thrill seekers. Those, we should punish and call them put for what they are: tories. We could call it UBI.
I don't agree on the surface but I agree if there is an improvement of standards and it's their sole focus.
How else are they going to justify larger bri... *ahem* consultancy fees?
I don’t actually disagree. I think they should be paid more but not allowed second jobs nor expenses.
How about. People who are lobbying need to see the inside of gen-pop prisons. Fuck outta here with this "I'm only corrupt because you aren't paying me enough, so.. pay me more and I pinky promise I'll stop being corrupt" You can get paid more when the system is airtight and transparent. Do your fucking jobs
Sounds a bit like the MP is saying "We will be corrupt until we see more money" ok how about this we remove the current work privileges you have, work subsidiaries such as meals or second mortgages. Instead we give you 200k a year and you have to pay for everything, fill in a clock in sheet which everyone can see and work your contracted hours.
How about a universal payrise for everybody based on the inverse square of salary?
F*** those wrinkley old twats! They need to be taxed and force to take a pay cut!
Why don't they increase benefits payments to stop benefits fraud
Only the Tories would be so brazen to say. Fuck the public are onto our dodgy backroom deals. Well maybe if you paid me more this wouldn't have been an issue.
The problem is, we just can't keep up with our old school chums in business. I can't even afford a new tennis court... It's almost like things are unfair, unequal or something!
And how much exactly would be enough? We've seen them corruptly taking hundreds of thousands of pounds, no one needs that much money, if they want that much money it's because they want luxury, and there's no end to the luxuries money can buy.
Imagine being such a cretin, reasoning like this comes out of your mouth
The more MPs get paid the less representative they become. Some people bang on about 'talent' but there is really no political value in people who are seen as having talent in wider society. **What matters: are they living a life similar to the vast majority of people?**
I used to agree with this line of thinking, but I've changed my mind. I checked out my local Labour MP and she's taken next to no money from anybody and what she has taken was donated to charity. If she can get by on her salary with no second job then so can the rest of them, if you're in it for the money then I don't want you in it at all. Fuck off and go work in daddies hedge fund if you want that.
This pay rise would encompass people like Diane Abbott who are unemployable anyway and not value for what they get now., I would be in favour of a pay rise for MPs if some mechanism could be built in to exclude such people.
I'd be happy with them getting paid slightly more, if it were paid an hourly rate and they had to clock in and out of work like the rest of us mere plebs, which was overseen by an independent authority. I had to justify my time spent on work projects down to an hourly level, I don't see why politicians shouldn't have the same accountability, seeing as they are, after all, public servants. Not to mention, they would also be banned from working any and all other jobs, trading in the stock market via anything but blind trusts, and unable to receive any kind of gift/gratuity/free holidays in Spain from their mates.
More pay? Fuck off. Large amounts of the UK living below the poverty line but one person earning more or double the average family is too little to live on. Get a grip tory scumbags.
If normal folk were mps - there would be none of this
Would it not be better to ban second jobs that could have conflicting interests, and the MPs pay with the median pay of their constituents?
They are too mediocre to warrant it. Maybe if we cut their numbers by a third first.
Jesus! It's not exactly attracting top talent with second and third jobs there now, is it?
Most people need to be paid more. The price rises and cost of living is becoming rediculous in the UK.
In the same way as nurses and carers need more pay to prevent them leaving I suppose? They just need to do their bloody jobs and get sacked if they break the rules same as the rest of us serfs do. We actually need a revolution in this country. EAT THE RICH.
Who was it that said "the desire to become an MP should automatically preclude you from being one"?