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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    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
    I used ministers of the most important departments because they are the most successful politicians in our government. I am not interested in going through the biographies of hundreds of politicians to cherry pick evidence; I simply started with the most important. Having said that, I did say Cable and Pickles were perfectly competent, for example.

    For what it is worth, many of cabinet ministers above were unsuccessful outside of politics (check yourself). It is also worth pointing out that many come from extremely privileged backgrounds so it is hard to say how responsible they are for their relative success outside of politics.

    The work done during their political career is irrelevant to me. Because by in large, it does not make them better politicians. Things like policy research and speech writing (hi Cameron and Gove) are a pile of meaningless horse ****. It is dogmatic nonsense. Other professions have to do proper research and evidence their claims through peer review. Politicians do nothing of the sort and are not held to account for being wrong.

    I am not asking politicians 'to have direct experience of a broad spectrum of life issues'. That is not what I want at all. I want them to specialise. I want them to run departments which are most suited to their previous experience, not what is seen as the most prestigious. I want them to get experience in the departments they are supposed to be running so they actually understand what the issues are on the ground. (Civil servants not being able to become MPs is a massive problem and results in us having hopelessly unqualified MPs making mistake after mistake). In the more technical departments such as business, education, health, and justice we should only ever have people who have actually done the job on the ground (e.g. Clark as justice minister). I am utterly sick of hearing moronic education ministers who have never worked in a school in their life continually whining about poor educational standards and teachers. These are often the same people who have never even been taught in a public school before but are now responsible for the education of millions of students.

    I hope that clarifies my position.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Capped at the national average excluding unemployed if they are taken into account when getting the average...idk.lol

    We are paying their wages, so why should we pay them more than the average person? It doesn't make any sense.

    For a start it gets rid of the dead wood career politicians who can't think of anything else they can do that gets them £70k+ a year or what ever they earn these days.lol

    We would get MPs who actually want to be there, not some Oxbridge graduate who wants their name in the paper.
    Actually, wrong you'd get the opposite. MPs' get paid well so the rich are the only ones who don't dominate. You need money to be a MP, simple as. If you capped the wages at something very low, the poor wouldn't be able to run nor would the lower middle classes. So the only people who could run and hold the position without destroying themselves would be the Rich.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly not OP.

    Whilst you may view these people as a waste of money, these are the lawmakers of our nation and this should surely be judged to be one of the most important jobs in society. They do a very important job for relatively low pay.

    I would agree with capping their expenses further and with a wider public sector salary cap of perhaps £200k however they deserve to be compensated in line with how important their job is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This would be disastrous for social mobility and the quality of candidates would collapse. A low wage would not attract able people from humble backgrounds as their primary job is also their main source of income. A left-wing policy that would create a more aristocratic government...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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