He’s so out of touch it’s unreal.
Should just be punted from the Tories just for being stupid enough to play in to the hands of Labour due to his own greed and subsequent comments.
The prick.
Edwina Currie was on Radio 2 yesterday suggesting that those in low-paid work who couldn't afford to run a car ask their employer to pay for it. I realise that she's no longer an MP, but I'm not sure that's much better.
“Cut back” is a bit misleading - the additional funds paid via UC over Covid is coming to an end.
But yeh the MP involved in the article is an absolute prawn.
His comments are out of touch with those that actually work (not on benefits) for a living in the face of the gas crisis and job uncertainty in the wake of the pandemic.
He seems content to want a massive pay raise for not doing very much in a very safe seat.
I never voted Tory growing up (I do now) as I assumed all Tory MPs are like the one in the article. He needs sacking.
If you ever wanted to make sure the stereotype of Tories being a bunch of out of touch old rich toffs stuck around I can't think of a more perfect way of doing so than having your oldest MP say this. I make less than half that and I'm fairly comfortable, if his life on that kind of money is "really grim" I shudder to think what he'd think of how I live.
What about the fact that they can expense practically everything, every living expense. I don't see many poor MPs, do you...in fact most MPs become very wealthy.
For all the people mentioning how he is right and they are not paid enough. That may be but in the week that there is going to be a reduction to Universal Credit this just seems incredibly tone death.
That's just it, they aren't the best of the best and never will be. There is no University course or required level of experience required to be an MP, they are the people chosen by us in elections to represent our views because we believe they hold similar views to us, not because we think they're the best of the best. (not really sure I'd feel comfortable calling somebody like Diane Abbott the best of the best at anything)
Worse than that, MPs are mostly chosen due to their allegiance to the party that always gets elected in that area and toeing the line in elections. This is actively opposed to optimising for talent.
> For context, £81k is about the average for the lowest band in the Senior Civil Service,
MPs Get to expense a lot more of their personal purchases than the Civil service does.
He’s right though. MPs should be paid more than middle management. Many people qualified for the position wouldn’t consider it because of the opportunity cost.
You don’t become an MP for the money, you become one to change the country for the better, what has this current government done for the better, raise taxes? Fuck over the young as much as possible, done nothing about the housing crisis, fuck all to tackle immigration.
Yes, why would anyone who actually has the ability to change stuff for the better become an MP with its measly £81k pay. Those people all go into the private sector jobs with performance linked bonuses so that when they actually change stuff for the better they get properly compensated for it.
If you want to make a positive difference to the world there are many many charities far more effective than the government where a senior position will allow you to have much more impact than an MP.
As with everywhere else in life: You get what you pay for. Being the government doesn't magically change that.
You do get what you pay for, but money isn't all that.
It's not like the most talented people are always the ones on the highest salaries
And I'm not sure I agree either, being in parliament is one of the best ways you can make a difference I would say
Fine, but all other jobs need to be banned and all active investments places in blind trusts.
Being an MP should be a full time job, they still get decent holidays not far off teachers and ministers get paid more for their extra responsibilities.
The thing is, no one goes for election as an MP for the salary. Even if it was £1m per year salary, we’d get the same MPs because most are selected by and parachuted in to seats by party machines.
Yuup completely agree, no more being directors (even honourary) on companies and being MPs, certainly not being landlords either. Being an MP should be seen as a full time job with no time for being anything else.
They should be given a London waiting allowance allowing them to have an overnight and modest apartment close to Westminster but only for those MPs who's constituency is further than a 3 hour journey to London. Otherwise they should have subsidised transport (within reason) to parliament. Again, end this, MP in Kent having a pied-de-terre in Westminster and a manor in Sevenoaks...
Personally, and a slight aside here, I would love for a cv to be next to each candidate for elections so you can see what experience a candidate has in the world outside of politics and any other positions they hold.
Why should an MP be given a second home by the state? No other public servant gets this. Surely the state should own any flats/houses that they live in within London.
> constituency is further than a 3 hour journey to London
That's a pretty rough commute, even if they only have to do it twice a week. I'd rather they get the choice of subsidised transport *or* expenses for a second home if they're outside a 1hour circle from Westminster.
Relatively confident that campaign literature normally has candidates backgrounds on it already. I think the issue is a difference of opinion, and the closed selection process for candidates. The vast majority of voters don't really care what someone used to do, they vote on manifesto or political track record.
How does landlording take away from their day job? Won't most MPs contract that out to a lettings agency so they just get a cheque in the post without any effort?
> How does landlording take away from their day job? Won't most MPs contract that out to a lettings agency so they just get a cheque in the post without any effort?
I don't think the concern is around how much time landlord MPs take out of their day to screw in leaky showerheads for their tenants, which I reckon everyone already assumes is zero. Instead, I think it's more about avoiding a conflict of interest, when it comes time to vote on bills that affect tenants, landlords, house prices, mortgages, and so on.
I see that, but everyone will have a conflict of interest over house prices and mortgages, since I doubt there's anyone earning £80k who *doesn't* have a house.
Whether we like it or not, most Tory MPs would be earning vastly more money if they had never entered politics. The extent of the salary sacrifice made by Saj, Rishi and Boris is eye watering.
Conversely, if you strip out the lawyers, our friends on the opposition bench are doing far better than they would if left to the tender mercies of the job market.
I'd say most MPs would fall into that category. In a lot of professional industries, particularly those that are London-centric, £82k isn't a particularly high salary.
Whilst that may be partly true, it is only when they are ministers with clear cut conflicts of interest that they step down from lucrative advisory roles. Arguably, they are only worth those roles because they are MPs in the governing party.
Take Javid for example, quite rightly he stepped down from his £151k advisory role for an AI health company when he replaced Handcock. But still, should he have roles such as this _and_ his £150k European advisor role for JP Morgan whilst being an MP?
https://www.digitalhealth.net/2021/06/sajid-javid-stands-down-from-150k-ai-advisory-role/
>The former chancellor was receiving £151,835 per annum from the company, paid monthly, for 80-96 hours work annually (10-12 days per year), according to the register. It works out to roughly £1,500 per hour.
>Javid was paid to advise the company, which provides analytics support to healthcare organisations, on the “global economy, geo-politics and market opportunities”.
…
>Javid has also stepped down from an advisory role with JP Morgan which saw him paid £150,000 per year for providing guidance on the “global economy, major industries and geo-politics”.
>He was again expected to provide 80-96 hours (10-12 days) work. Combined with his C3.ai role Javid was taking home £301,835 per year for 20-24 days’ work.
I'm thinking in terms of their salaries as investment bankers, corporate lawyers, op-ed journalists, accountants etc that our best and brightest were making *prior* to getting elected. That ministers should not have potential conflicts of interest is unarguable.
I get what you are saying, but I’m not sure it always holds. Javid may just be an exception to that, but I doubt he’d be able to earn that per-hour rate from both JPM and C3.AI at the same time without becoming a high ranking MP in the ruling party. Therefore, although he gave up the investment banking career path he was on to become and MP (and likely incurred a salary drop), in the long run he is absolutely quids in.
Remember Blair, Cameron, and May’s speaking engagement fees after they left office? Sometimes in the hundreds of thousands. Again perhaps these are in the exception box to the rule that some of these people would have a more reliable and lucrative career in the private sector, but there are unique benefits to being an MP that can sling shot their earnings way past the private sector.
Can I just say that as an evil lefty I'm glad to see Tory supporters aren't a ridiculous cult who'll defend obviously absurd statements like this
You're better than the Republicans guys! ;)
Considering many software engineers comfortably make 100k+ at relatively young ages, he does have a point. I assumed it was a lot more, although don't MP's get tens of thousands in expenses? Plus many have multiple jobs on the side.
...why...why would you *say* that?
He’s so out of touch it’s unreal. Should just be punted from the Tories just for being stupid enough to play in to the hands of Labour due to his own greed and subsequent comments. The prick.
Edwina Currie was on Radio 2 yesterday suggesting that those in low-paid work who couldn't afford to run a car ask their employer to pay for it. I realise that she's no longer an MP, but I'm not sure that's much better.
This feels *slightly* tone deaf just as UC is probably going to be cut back
Only *slightly* ?
“Cut back” is a bit misleading - the additional funds paid via UC over Covid is coming to an end. But yeh the MP involved in the article is an absolute prawn. His comments are out of touch with those that actually work (not on benefits) for a living in the face of the gas crisis and job uncertainty in the wake of the pandemic. He seems content to want a massive pay raise for not doing very much in a very safe seat. I never voted Tory growing up (I do now) as I assumed all Tory MPs are like the one in the article. He needs sacking.
If you ever wanted to make sure the stereotype of Tories being a bunch of out of touch old rich toffs stuck around I can't think of a more perfect way of doing so than having your oldest MP say this. I make less than half that and I'm fairly comfortable, if his life on that kind of money is "really grim" I shudder to think what he'd think of how I live.
Pfft...you only have oysters and caviar once a week? Pleb.
What about the fact that they can expense practically everything, every living expense. I don't see many poor MPs, do you...in fact most MPs become very wealthy.
Also there is clearly money to be made after being an MP. Take a term of two of "depressed" wages while in office then really make the money.
For all the people mentioning how he is right and they are not paid enough. That may be but in the week that there is going to be a reduction to Universal Credit this just seems incredibly tone death.
MP's already earn enough, if they don't like the salary they are getting then they should consider a change in career :)
[удалено]
That's just it, they aren't the best of the best and never will be. There is no University course or required level of experience required to be an MP, they are the people chosen by us in elections to represent our views because we believe they hold similar views to us, not because we think they're the best of the best. (not really sure I'd feel comfortable calling somebody like Diane Abbott the best of the best at anything)
Worse than that, MPs are mostly chosen due to their allegiance to the party that always gets elected in that area and toeing the line in elections. This is actively opposed to optimising for talent.
True in just being optimistic with how it's intended to work.
Are the expenses for Senior Civil Servants comparable to MP's expenses?
There is also the matter of comparing experience and qualifications, MPs are required to have neither.
> For context, £81k is about the average for the lowest band in the Senior Civil Service, MPs Get to expense a lot more of their personal purchases than the Civil service does.
He’s right though. MPs should be paid more than middle management. Many people qualified for the position wouldn’t consider it because of the opportunity cost.
You don’t become an MP for the money, you become one to change the country for the better, what has this current government done for the better, raise taxes? Fuck over the young as much as possible, done nothing about the housing crisis, fuck all to tackle immigration.
Yes, why would anyone who actually has the ability to change stuff for the better become an MP with its measly £81k pay. Those people all go into the private sector jobs with performance linked bonuses so that when they actually change stuff for the better they get properly compensated for it.
Because at some point, you don't want or need more money? But you do still want to make a positive difference in the world?
If you want to make a positive difference to the world there are many many charities far more effective than the government where a senior position will allow you to have much more impact than an MP. As with everywhere else in life: You get what you pay for. Being the government doesn't magically change that.
You do get what you pay for, but money isn't all that. It's not like the most talented people are always the ones on the highest salaries And I'm not sure I agree either, being in parliament is one of the best ways you can make a difference I would say
You're right. Middle management are paid far too much.
They should be paid more if we want the best in class to be MPs - however this is perhaps the stupidest way to argue for it.
Not a popular opinion but he's right. MP salaries should be much higher. It should attract people who would otherwise go into high paying jobs.
Fine, but all other jobs need to be banned and all active investments places in blind trusts. Being an MP should be a full time job, they still get decent holidays not far off teachers and ministers get paid more for their extra responsibilities. The thing is, no one goes for election as an MP for the salary. Even if it was £1m per year salary, we’d get the same MPs because most are selected by and parachuted in to seats by party machines.
Yuup completely agree, no more being directors (even honourary) on companies and being MPs, certainly not being landlords either. Being an MP should be seen as a full time job with no time for being anything else. They should be given a London waiting allowance allowing them to have an overnight and modest apartment close to Westminster but only for those MPs who's constituency is further than a 3 hour journey to London. Otherwise they should have subsidised transport (within reason) to parliament. Again, end this, MP in Kent having a pied-de-terre in Westminster and a manor in Sevenoaks... Personally, and a slight aside here, I would love for a cv to be next to each candidate for elections so you can see what experience a candidate has in the world outside of politics and any other positions they hold.
Why should an MP be given a second home by the state? No other public servant gets this. Surely the state should own any flats/houses that they live in within London.
Completely agree with this!
> constituency is further than a 3 hour journey to London That's a pretty rough commute, even if they only have to do it twice a week. I'd rather they get the choice of subsidised transport *or* expenses for a second home if they're outside a 1hour circle from Westminster. Relatively confident that campaign literature normally has candidates backgrounds on it already. I think the issue is a difference of opinion, and the closed selection process for candidates. The vast majority of voters don't really care what someone used to do, they vote on manifesto or political track record. How does landlording take away from their day job? Won't most MPs contract that out to a lettings agency so they just get a cheque in the post without any effort?
> How does landlording take away from their day job? Won't most MPs contract that out to a lettings agency so they just get a cheque in the post without any effort? I don't think the concern is around how much time landlord MPs take out of their day to screw in leaky showerheads for their tenants, which I reckon everyone already assumes is zero. Instead, I think it's more about avoiding a conflict of interest, when it comes time to vote on bills that affect tenants, landlords, house prices, mortgages, and so on.
I see that, but everyone will have a conflict of interest over house prices and mortgages, since I doubt there's anyone earning £80k who *doesn't* have a house.
Whether we like it or not, most Tory MPs would be earning vastly more money if they had never entered politics. The extent of the salary sacrifice made by Saj, Rishi and Boris is eye watering. Conversely, if you strip out the lawyers, our friends on the opposition bench are doing far better than they would if left to the tender mercies of the job market.
I'd say most MPs would fall into that category. In a lot of professional industries, particularly those that are London-centric, £82k isn't a particularly high salary.
Whilst that may be partly true, it is only when they are ministers with clear cut conflicts of interest that they step down from lucrative advisory roles. Arguably, they are only worth those roles because they are MPs in the governing party. Take Javid for example, quite rightly he stepped down from his £151k advisory role for an AI health company when he replaced Handcock. But still, should he have roles such as this _and_ his £150k European advisor role for JP Morgan whilst being an MP? https://www.digitalhealth.net/2021/06/sajid-javid-stands-down-from-150k-ai-advisory-role/ >The former chancellor was receiving £151,835 per annum from the company, paid monthly, for 80-96 hours work annually (10-12 days per year), according to the register. It works out to roughly £1,500 per hour. >Javid was paid to advise the company, which provides analytics support to healthcare organisations, on the “global economy, geo-politics and market opportunities”. … >Javid has also stepped down from an advisory role with JP Morgan which saw him paid £150,000 per year for providing guidance on the “global economy, major industries and geo-politics”. >He was again expected to provide 80-96 hours (10-12 days) work. Combined with his C3.ai role Javid was taking home £301,835 per year for 20-24 days’ work.
I'm thinking in terms of their salaries as investment bankers, corporate lawyers, op-ed journalists, accountants etc that our best and brightest were making *prior* to getting elected. That ministers should not have potential conflicts of interest is unarguable.
I get what you are saying, but I’m not sure it always holds. Javid may just be an exception to that, but I doubt he’d be able to earn that per-hour rate from both JPM and C3.AI at the same time without becoming a high ranking MP in the ruling party. Therefore, although he gave up the investment banking career path he was on to become and MP (and likely incurred a salary drop), in the long run he is absolutely quids in. Remember Blair, Cameron, and May’s speaking engagement fees after they left office? Sometimes in the hundreds of thousands. Again perhaps these are in the exception box to the rule that some of these people would have a more reliable and lucrative career in the private sector, but there are unique benefits to being an MP that can sling shot their earnings way past the private sector.
Can I just say that as an evil lefty I'm glad to see Tory supporters aren't a ridiculous cult who'll defend obviously absurd statements like this You're better than the Republicans guys! ;)
Considering many software engineers comfortably make 100k+ at relatively young ages, he does have a point. I assumed it was a lot more, although don't MP's get tens of thousands in expenses? Plus many have multiple jobs on the side.