Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Anti-social hours are part of the job. Give them an over-time rate if needs be. I worked 0630-2000 6 days a week. I can tell you it was far from £70k a year I earned.



    Yeah actually, I can understand how annoying it would be to have to leave the dull wet and cold UK for a 12hour 1st class flight to Singapore or where ever, not having to spend a penny too. Poor MPs. There are also domestic flights all across the UK, it doesn't cost them to travel.



    Well currently they are doing a pretty ****ty job, so they can't be working too hard can they. If their wage reflected the national average I suspect they might do a little more to increase that average.



    A, plenty of other jobs you can get after a time in government. B, if you aren't re-elected you haven't done enough for your constituency. If you can't make the grade you lose your job, the same goes for everywhere, at least MPs are guaranteed 4/5 years, something that few others can enjoy.



    So what is wrong with this luxurious state pension that was so ****ing luxurious it needed to be cut?



    A builder can make a wrong decision and build an unstable house which could kill an entire family.

    'Important' is subjective. If you use it in one case it can and will be applied to others.
    I see your argument. I'm just unsure I agree. I'm not sure an MP should earn less than a newly qualified City lawyer (c£60k) or a reasonably experienced plumber (c£50k) or any such jobs that make up that wage bracket.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    The OP has 'immature, child like reasoning'. His points are invalid. He is pathetic and offensive and not someone worth listening to. All because you say so...

    Now anonstudent1 is stupid for failing to understand your irrational hatred...

    Explain why bestofyou is wrong or do us all a favour and **** off.
    Cry me a river. Another person who can't read a post in context and has to result to crude language to try and make a point.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    It's not a perfect system but if people choose not to engage they don't have much right to then moan if their views are not represented.
    I think there are two separate problems. Whether democracy is the most rational political system, and the personal face of democracy itself.

    The personal face issue is unqualified politicians from largely privileged backgrounds being paid far too much for jobs that they do not do well enough and are not accountable for. They are being paid professional wages, yet have no code of conduct or duty of care to the people who elected them. They are not even held accountable for their manifesto policies, because that would involve them actually using evidence and reason rather than pandering to populist misconceptions. If another professional acted in the same way they did they would be struck off from their relevant professional body for the rest of their life and never be able to practice again (and probably imprisoned). Yet we have a House of Commons and Lords with convicted criminals, people who have never been elected into their position of power, and people who have a track record of being incapable of doing their job properly.

    When you take the above in account it is not hard to see why people choose not to engage with an already flawed political process. For what is worth, I live in an area where my vote would make no difference whatsoever. My MP has been in his seat for almost 40 years...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Cry me a river. Another person who can't read a post in context and has to result to crude language to try and make a point.
    There was no context to your post. You refused to explain why you disagreed with the OP, insulted him, and everyone else who asked you to explain why you disagreed.

    Now you have the cheek to say we resort to crude language?

    Jesus H Christ. The only stone in this thread is the only that clearly hit you in the head.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    They should be capped the same amount as other public sector workers
    Doctors are also public sector workers and a consultant with 20 years' experience would be remunerated to the tune of £100k (this is just NHS pay).

    By this example, would you like to see MPs' pay go up by around 50%? :rolleyes:

    However, I believe that their pay rises should be capped by the same amount as the average public sector workers. One never hears of MPs receiving pay freezes for 2 years, does one?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    There was no context to your post. You refused to explain why you disagreed with the OP, insulted him, and everyone else who asked you to explain why you disagreed.

    Now you have the cheek to say we resort to crude language?

    Jesus H Christ. The only stone in this thread is the only that clearly hit you in the head.
    So be everyone you mean that one other person? The post I quoted when making my initial comment was the context, if you can't see how it exposes the OP as an immature idiot then I can't really explain it any clearer.

    You did resort to crude language, did you not?

    I don't see how Jesus or a stone is involved.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Doctors are also public sector workers and a consultant with 20 years' experience would be remunerated to the tune of £100k (this is just NHS pay).

    By this example, would you like to see MPs' pay go up by around 50%? :rolleyes:

    However, I believe that their pay rises should be capped by the same amount as the average public sector workers. One never hears of MPs receiving pay freezes for 2 years, does one?
    I did mean pay rises when I typed my message, I just forgot to mention it :P
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    I did mean pay rises when I typed my message, I just forgot to mention it :P
    Yeah, I kinda thought you may have forgotten to mention it when I got about half way in to writing the post, but then I thought I might as well finish it as I would have otherwise wasted my time
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Doctors are also public sector workers and a consultant with 20 years' experience would be remunerated to the tune of £100k (this is just NHS pay).

    By this example, would you like to see MPs' pay go up by around 50%? :rolleyes:

    However, I believe that their pay rises should be capped by the same amount as the average public sector workers. One never hears of MPs receiving pay freezes for 2 years, does one?
    To be honest I haven't heard that MP salaries have actually risen for several years? I could be wrong...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    To be honest I haven't heard that MP salaries have actually risen for several years? I could be wrong...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just found this article and found it hilarious! :rolleyes:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Just found this article and found it hilarious! :rolleyes:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487
    Aha! Well that is what I was wondering about, I guess.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Doctors are also public sector workers and a consultant with 20 years' experience would be remunerated to the tune of £100k (this is just NHS pay).

    By this example, would you like to see MPs' pay go up by around 50%? :rolleyes:

    However, I believe that their pay rises should be capped by the same amount as the average public sector workers. One never hears of MPs receiving pay freezes for 2 years, does one?
    How can you even compare doctors to politicians? A medical degree takes at least five years. The entry requirements and competition are horrific. Then there is specialist training on top of that. Only after many years, where their experience makes them better practitioners, would a doctor qualify for that sort of pay. Then they would have to wait for a vacancy to open up. These are people we trust our lives with.

    Politicians on the other hand...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    How can you even compare doctors to politicians? A medical degree takes at least five years. The entry requirements and competition are horrific. Then there is specialist training on top of that. Only after many years, where their experience makes them better practitioners, would a doctor qualify for that sort of pay. Then they would have to wait for a vacancy to open up. These are people we trust our lives with.

    Politicians on the other hand...
    It isn't easy to become an MP, you know.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    How can you even compare doctors to politicians? A medical degree takes at least five years. The entry requirements and competition are horrific. Then there is specialist training on top of that. Only after many years, where their experience makes them better practitioners, would a doctor qualify for that sort of pay. Then they would have to wait for a vacancy to open up. These are people we trust our lives with.

    Politicians on the other hand...
    Well if you think MPs are paid too much, and that it is an easy job, why don't you become one? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    It isn't easy to become an MP, you know. […]
    What exactly does it take to become a MP? I look at George Osbourne and struggle to see how he is qualified to represent the constituency that elected him, an area he has no connection with, or to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    Well if you think MPs are paid too much, and that it is an easy job, why don't you become one? :rolleyes:
    That is not a valid argument. Despite what you think, a food critic can criticise Gordon Ramsey without cooking food himself. Of course, what makes the critic's opinion worthwhile is his previous experience. Ramsey is more likely to accept the critic's opinion if he was previously a world-class cook and had his own restaurant. For politicians this does not apply. Someone like Michael Gove can have a mediocre career as a journalist, spend some time in the Shadow cabinet, then become Secretary of State for Education despite never working in a school. The whole thing is farcical. (Despite the inherent unfairness of the House of Lords, they at least do tend to have experts in there or openly seek advice from experts when deciding upon things).

    As far as your question is concerned, I would rather do something useful with my time to be honest.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    What exactly does it take to become a MP? I look at George Osbourne and struggle to see how he is qualified to represent the constituency that elected him, an area he has no connection with, or to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


    That is not a valid argument. Despite what you think, a food critic can criticise Gordon Ramsey without cooking food himself. Of course, what makes the critic's opinion worthwhile is his previous experience. Ramsey is more likely to accept the critic's opinion if he was previously a world-class cook and had his own restaurant. For politicians this does not apply. Someone like Michael Gove can have a mediocre career as a journalist, spend some time in the Shadow cabinet, then become Secretary of State for Education despite never working in a school. The whole thing is farcical. (Despite the inherent unfairness of the House of Lords, they at least do tend to have experts in there or openly seek advice from experts when deciding upon things).

    As far as your question is concerned, I would rather do something useful with my time to be honest.
    Well, first off, examining and dismissing Osbourne alone is not the best analysis. There is only ever one chancellor. For every one there are thousands who want to be of wanted to be a chancellor. I will give a rough idea based on what it takes to become ANY MP.

    It's very competitive to become an MP. To begin with, many of the current front bench are Oxbridge educated. You may or may not belittle this point because they are 'posh'.

    Regardless, youth politics at every level is very fierce. To have a realistic chance to gain election you must:

    1. Join a political party, meet the right people and network;

    2. You must build your profile and capital within the party either through projects, policy research or positions on elected councils;

    3. You must be selected to stand in a general election. To obtain this is a great achievement as you have overcome many others to get there. Even then, selection is no guarantee of election.

    4. You must then get elected. There are relatively few safe seats and only a handful of new standees get selected for them. Most of the time, election is down to the campaign you run.

    If you do well but lose, you may get a safe seat next time. That's five years on low to average wage for many.

    5. Eventually you may get elected. Safe to say you have overcome a pretty tough process to get there.


    I have friends who are trying to break it into politics. Some are trying through the elected councillor route and a couple are going through the policy research route.

    One of the former route have been elected as a councillor. He has spent the last three years on an exceptionally mediocre wage. There is no guarantee he will be selected to stand for MP in 2015. At any local election he could lose his seat on the council.

    Those going through the research route are having similar difficulty. They had to intern for MPs on no wage for around a year in total. They are both now attached to MPs as aides doing very menial work for c.15-£20k p/a depending on location. Again, this job is temporary.

    It is possible, obviously, to go into politics 'late'. Note that many of those MPs were in business or the professions themselves before switching to politics. These probably took a pay cut to do this, and in any case probably bring something of the 'real world' with them.

    The general gist is that you cannot just 'walk into' the job. It takes a great deal of work, drive and determination to get there. There is something of a behind the scenes 'apprenticeship' and at each stage wannabes fall by the wayside.

    Many of them have studied politics it economics or history at uni. I would suggest that this education is not irrelevant to the role.

    And then even when you make it, you get £67k a year + expenses to do the job (which is not easy). And that is very likely to be the highlight of your career... Certainly you will struggle to max £150k where in another career people of that education attainment and/or competency may expect to make that much.

    Sooooo... It isn't really dissimilar to training for medicine...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    […] Sooooo... It isn't really dissimilar to training for medicine... [...]
    Most of what you wrote above is irrelevant if you stand as an independent candidate. Admittedly, you stand less chance of getting elected, but the point is worth making. Likewise, none of what you wrote above actually makes the person a better politician. In fact, it often makes them less qualified to serve the general public as they often have no experience or expertise outside of the political process itself (i.e. building their profile as you put it).

    I cannot accept your suggestion that many MPs 'were in business or the professions themselves before switching to politics. These probably took a pay cut to do this, and in any case probably bring something of the “real world” with them'. Take some of the most prominent cabinet members as examples below:

    Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – Cable, good minister
    Department for Communities and Local Government – Pickles, good minister
    Department for Culture, Media and Sport – Miller, experience in advertising
    Department for Education – Gove, a former journalist
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Paterson, experience in selling leather
    Department for International Development – Greening, experience in accounting
    Department for Transport – McLoughlin, a former miner
    Department for Work and Pensions – Smith, a former soldier and someone who sold arms
    Department of Energy and Climate Change – Davey, a former management consultant
    Department of Health – Hunt, a former English-language teacher and worked in public relations
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office – Hague, former management consultant
    Her Majesty's Treasury – Osbourne, a failed journalist
    Home Office – May, a former financial consultant and councillor
    Ministry of Defence – Hammond, various managerial positions in different sectors
    Ministry of Justice – Grayling, former journalist and councillor

    Cable, Davey, Hague, and Miller look like the only ones with any postgraduate education.

    Most of the minister's previous work experience is actually short lived and largely irrelevant to the position their hold; for most politics is clearly their main career. The number of people whose only work experience is in the media, which includes Cameron and Clegg, is actually disturbing and explains the lack of substance most ministers have.

    The problem is too many ministers are in positions way over their head. Gove, Smith, Hunt, Osbourne and Grayling are complete liabilities and should be no where near their respective posts. But some of these are very close to Cameron, which shows what kind of government he is interested in running. Likewise, some ministers are simply running the wrong departments. Cable is probably the most competent minister in government and should be doing Osbourne's job.

    The appointment of Grayling to replace Ken Clarke as justice minister is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in general. Replacing a lawyer with a genuine interest in improving the system with an idiot who has no experience of the justice system and is only interested in privatising prisons because of his dogmatic ideology.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    Most of what you wrote above is irrelevant if you stand as an independent candidate. Admittedly, you stand less chance of getting elected, but the point is worth making. Likewise, none of what you wrote above actually makes the person a better politician. In fact, it often makes them less qualified to serve the general public as they often have no experience or expertise outside of the political process itself (i.e. building their profile as you put it).

    I cannot accept your suggestion that many MPs 'were in business or the professions themselves before switching to politics. These probably took a pay cut to do this, and in any case probably bring something of the “real world” with them'. Take some of the most prominent cabinet members as examples below:

    Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – Cable, good minister
    Department for Communities and Local Government – Pickles, good minister
    Department for Culture, Media and Sport – Miller, experience in advertising
    Department for Education – Gove, a former journalist
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Paterson, experience in selling leather
    Department for International Development – Greening, experience in accounting
    Department for Transport – McLoughlin, a former miner
    Department for Work and Pensions – Smith, a former soldier and someone who sold arms
    Department of Energy and Climate Change – Davey, a former management consultant
    Department of Health – Hunt, a former English-language teacher and worked in public relations
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office – Hague, former management consultant
    Her Majesty's Treasury – Osbourne, a failed journalist
    Home Office – May, a former financial consultant and councillor
    Ministry of Defence – Hammond, various managerial positions in different sectors
    Ministry of Justice – Grayling, former journalist and councillor

    Cable, Davey, Hague, and Miller look like the only ones with any postgraduate education.

    Most of the minister's previous work experience is actually short lived and largely irrelevant to the position their hold; for most politics is clearly their main career. The number of people whose only work experience is in the media, which includes Cameron and Clegg, is actually disturbing and explains the lack of substance most ministers have.

    The problem is too many ministers are in positions way over their head. Gove, Smith, Hunt, Osbourne and Grayling are complete liabilities and should be no where near their respective posts. But some of these are very close to Cameron, which shows what kind of government he is interested in running. Likewise, some ministers are simply running the wrong departments. Cable is probably the most competent minister in government and should be doing Osbourne's job.

    The appointment of Grayling to replace Ken Clarke as justice minister is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in general. Replacing a lawyer with a genuine interest in improving the system with an idiot who has no experience of the justice system and is only interested in privatising prisons because of his dogmatic ideology.
    I was talking about the general experience of getting elected as an MP.

    Naturally, I ignored the Independent route because of the low chance if success.

    I also avoided talking about the cabinet because you were moaning about MPs, not Ministers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Also you have provided facts which suit your opinion. I'm fairly sure that a good proportion of those pre-election careers would have been at least as well remunerated as a political career had they continued.

    You have also neglected to mention work done whilst in a political career. Osbourne, for example, did the kind of policy research I was writing about earlier.

    Edit: I do accept that the route may insulate politicians from the real world to an extent.

    But then again, what experience can we reasonably expect? A lawyer knows little of the miner, whilst a cleaner may have no appreciation of the perils of inheritance tax... It is a bit of a false hope to desire politicians to have direct experience of a broad spectrum of life issues.

    Regardless, your issue was with how easy you thought it was to be a career politician in comparison to medical training. I addressed that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    you should be kapped

    Knee capped.

    ohhhhh, burn
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.