Tony Blair says politicians are underpaid- do you agree?
Scroll to see replies
I think he should kill himself, then put his wages towards helping people recover from the Labour party's illegal wars.
Original post by rich2606
Probably deserve higher pay alone for the abuse they get from the general population.
Lol, this.
Seriously, being a politician must be one of the most underappreciated jobs ever. The pay isn't really very good when you consider how competitive it is to become an MP, for example. Also, the general public hates you for absolutely no reason.
Awwwwww diddums
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
If you go into politics for money you are doing it for the wrong reasons. Call me naive and idealistic, but good candidates shouldn't be attracted by money, they're should be attracted by the chance to change the country for the better and represent their constituents. I'd much rather have a local councillor, activist or small business owner enter parliament than someone who is privately educated and would otherwise end up as an executive at a FTSE 100 company but doesn't see MP's salaries as 'competitive'.
All that said, yes, I believe our politicians are somewhat underpaid compared to roles of similar responsibility in the private sector. But I'll lose no sleep over it, especially while public sector workers are effectively seeing their wage fall at 0 to 1% increases and MPs are set to enjoy a 7-10% increase in their salary.
All that said, yes, I believe our politicians are somewhat underpaid compared to roles of similar responsibility in the private sector. But I'll lose no sleep over it, especially while public sector workers are effectively seeing their wage fall at 0 to 1% increases and MPs are set to enjoy a 7-10% increase in their salary.
Original post by Alfissti
-snip-
I suppose a simpler analogy would be the difference between your average teacher that teaches at a state school vs one at your typical public school. One is paid peanuts while another is among the best paid in EU, it doesn't take long to deduce one is better, one will be cream of the crop while the other will essentially be that monkey that is only a teacher because there is absolutely nothing else he or she could do. It doesn't necessarily have to be a state vs private argument. You could also look at the situation in Scandinavian countries (minus Sweden) where teacher salaries are among the highest in EU, there is an ample pool of applicants that only the very best gets chosen to be teachers. Contrast that with UK where salaries isn't high you usually get your usual kinds of scumbags that become teachers or other types of civil servants because they are essentially unemployable in the private sector.
-snip-
-snip-
I suppose a simpler analogy would be the difference between your average teacher that teaches at a state school vs one at your typical public school. One is paid peanuts while another is among the best paid in EU, it doesn't take long to deduce one is better, one will be cream of the crop while the other will essentially be that monkey that is only a teacher because there is absolutely nothing else he or she could do. It doesn't necessarily have to be a state vs private argument. You could also look at the situation in Scandinavian countries (minus Sweden) where teacher salaries are among the highest in EU, there is an ample pool of applicants that only the very best gets chosen to be teachers. Contrast that with UK where salaries isn't high you usually get your usual kinds of scumbags that become teachers or other types of civil servants because they are essentially unemployable in the private sector.
-snip-
Have you got any evidence about private teachers salaries vs state? - last time I found something on the subject they were pretty similar but with the private getting the perk of doing less paperwork.
This is one of those things that, on the surface seems both reasonable and unreasonable in equal measure. A good mp will do an insane amount of work with ridiculous hours that, in the private sector, would earn them at least triple what they get currently.
Like others I see the disconnect between 'best people for the job' and 'best people at running for the job'. Would a system like the US' help, where the administration in charge brings people from outside of the government in to be secretaries/ministers in our case...?
PM gets over 125k, but, if you compared that to a private sector CEO with comparable responsibilities who's earning an 8 figure salary it does pale into insignificance.
Like others I see the disconnect between 'best people for the job' and 'best people at running for the job'. Would a system like the US' help, where the administration in charge brings people from outside of the government in to be secretaries/ministers in our case...?
Original post by The_Internet
Awwwwww diddums
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
PM gets over 125k, but, if you compared that to a private sector CEO with comparable responsibilities who's earning an 8 figure salary it does pale into insignificance.
I keep reading about how you don't want people entering for the money but what I don't think people realise is this:
It's not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people who would like to do the best for this country and give politics a go but the risk is too great. If you're already on way into six figures, have a near flawless career then you're not going to go home to your family and tell them to downsize everything, leave private school and move house, as well as be abused by the public, have your career trashed, have heightened stress levels and everyone hate you for a pathetic 70k no matter how much you want to do the right thing. People are absolutely deluded if they think someone will take over a 150% pay cut to do 'the right thing'. It doesn't happen.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people who would like to do the best for this country and give politics a go but the risk is too great. If you're already on way into six figures, have a near flawless career then you're not going to go home to your family and tell them to downsize everything, leave private school and move house, as well as be abused by the public, have your career trashed, have heightened stress levels and everyone hate you for a pathetic 70k no matter how much you want to do the right thing. People are absolutely deluded if they think someone will take over a 150% pay cut to do 'the right thing'. It doesn't happen.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The_Internet
Awwwwww diddums
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
If there's any one who's underpaid, it's the majority of the public sector (Because in reality, we can't afford to pay what they actually deserve) Politicians get paid a "fair" wage imo. Cameron gets paid, what, 70K? And they get their expenses...
MPs pay is around £67,000 a year, I think that's going up. Government ministers and the PM get well over £100,000 a year.
If increasing pay can improve the quality of politicians even just by a tiny little bit, it's a no-brainer.
A bad policy can easily cost billions in tax money.
What's a few millions in extra salary?
It's like paying someone £100k/yr to invest your £1B, and get 10% return, vs paying someone slightly better £200k/yr and get 11% return. Benefit is orders of magnitudes higher than cost.
Is it "fair"? Maybe? Maybe not? It's better for everyone.
A bad policy can easily cost billions in tax money.
What's a few millions in extra salary?
It's like paying someone £100k/yr to invest your £1B, and get 10% return, vs paying someone slightly better £200k/yr and get 11% return. Benefit is orders of magnitudes higher than cost.
Is it "fair"? Maybe? Maybe not? It's better for everyone.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Observatory
I'm not sure our views are as similar as you think.
In particular I think people misunderstand what makes the private sector effective. Internally, large private companies are creaking bureaucracies just like governments. Their internal selection mechanisms for managers are probably no better than those used to select MPs and ministers. The main difference is that the market ruthlessly destroys the poorest performing companies, which provides a check on bureaucratic sclerosis by simply eliminating the most sclerotic companies over time. The state, on the other hand, is immortal and never endures this useful creative destruction.
In particular I think people misunderstand what makes the private sector effective. Internally, large private companies are creaking bureaucracies just like governments. Their internal selection mechanisms for managers are probably no better than those used to select MPs and ministers. The main difference is that the market ruthlessly destroys the poorest performing companies, which provides a check on bureaucratic sclerosis by simply eliminating the most sclerotic companies over time. The state, on the other hand, is immortal and never endures this useful creative destruction.
Maybe in some companies. Maybe even in most companies. But in well-run companies, pay and tenure is linked to performance, and underperformers are cut. A system of that sort for representative politicians would not require gatekeeping on 'self-interested dross'.
Original post by will2348
I keep reading about how you don't want people entering for the money but what I don't think people realise is this:
It's not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people who would like to do the best for this country and give politics a go but the risk is too great. If you're already on way into six figures, have a near flawless career then you're not going to go home to your family and tell them to downsize everything, leave private school and move house, as well as be abused by the public, have your career trashed, have heightened stress levels and everyone hate you for a pathetic 70k no matter how much you want to do the right thing. People are absolutely deluded if they think someone will take over a 150% pay cut to do 'the right thing'. It doesn't happen.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's not mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people who would like to do the best for this country and give politics a go but the risk is too great. If you're already on way into six figures, have a near flawless career then you're not going to go home to your family and tell them to downsize everything, leave private school and move house, as well as be abused by the public, have your career trashed, have heightened stress levels and everyone hate you for a pathetic 70k no matter how much you want to do the right thing. People are absolutely deluded if they think someone will take over a 150% pay cut to do 'the right thing'. It doesn't happen.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Spot on. I don't understand why people think self-interest cannot go hand in hand with performing a good job for the country. That's exactly what CEOs in private companies are incentivised to do.
Perhaps the best analogy is to doctors.
People on this thread presumably believe that high salaries for doctors attract only the self-interested, is a corrupting force, and that we would have a better quality of medical professionals if they were only receiving £20k a year
.
The reality is that many of the smartest and most able young people in the country aspire to be a doctor in part because of the money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If being a politician could compete moneywise with being a consultant doctor, barrister or banker, you would see a corresponding increase of the brightest and best aiming for that profession.
People on this thread presumably believe that high salaries for doctors attract only the self-interested, is a corrupting force, and that we would have a better quality of medical professionals if they were only receiving £20k a year
.The reality is that many of the smartest and most able young people in the country aspire to be a doctor in part because of the money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If being a politician could compete moneywise with being a consultant doctor, barrister or banker, you would see a corresponding increase of the brightest and best aiming for that profession.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ClickItBack
Maybe in some companies. Maybe even in most companies. But in well-run companies, pay and tenure is linked to performance, and underperformers are cut. A system of that sort for representative politicians would not require gatekeeping on 'self-interested dross'.
There's no objective way to measure the performance of a law maker, since the law maker defines the standards by which performance is measured. A socialist can argue that he was still successful if GDP per capita tanks because the GINI coefficient also declined; a market liberal can argue the opposite. This is not the case for a company because the standard for performance is ultimately not set by its own CEO but by the market as a whole.
So the only possible selection criteria for law makers is honesty, not competence, and high salaries, I suggest, tend to select for dishonesty.
edit: In other words the job of politician is not the same as the job of law maker. Paying high salaries probably guarantees better politicians but not better law makers; it's not clear to me that it is better to be ruled by super-intelligent conmen rather than moderately intelligent village alderman types. I'd indeed rather be ruled by moderately intelligent conmen than super-intelligent ones.
(edited 9 years ago)
I do certainly agree in terms of a private sector equivalent and even the importance of their job relative to average salaries (I speak of an MP's base salary here).
I don't agree with them being raised without scrapping expenses though and I don't believe you'll get that much higher quality. The best thing we could do for quality is stop 'spag's' from entering parliament having never worked in the private sector.
I don't agree with them being raised without scrapping expenses though and I don't believe you'll get that much higher quality. The best thing we could do for quality is stop 'spag's' from entering parliament having never worked in the private sector.
Tony Blair psychopath war criminal, bilderberger, new world order establishment. Nuff said. He's made tens of millions since he left office.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Should i vote Labour?
- How to tell boss I want to leave
- Year abroad at SciencesPo or placement year?
- Does anyone miss the late 90s/00s period?
- Is my school allowed to refuse me entry?
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Veterinary Medicine/ Vet work-life balance
- Choosing a career
- Biochemistry jobs and salary?
- McDonald's my schedule help
- year 13-- a gyg blog
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- University: Law/international relations
- Am I being underpaid? Is this workplace abuse of overtime?
- Mathematics for PAT Question Help
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Tory MP William Wragg admits to leaking phone numbers in ‘honeytrap’ scandal
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
