23 ms·

The pay is a large issue. In the UK, being a Member of Parliament, you get around £65k. That doesn't compare well to business jobs of similar responsibility etc

by axod 16y ago

The pay is a large issue. In the UK, being a Member of Parliament, you get around £65k. That doesn't compare well to business jobs of similar responsibility etc. Even the prime minister is on less pay than several civil servants which is ridiculous. No wonder we have so many people in government from wealthy families. I don't remember quite where it was but I read that somewhere in Asia the government/MPs get paid a million or so, which results in better people, and obviously less corruption/fiddling accounts etc.

api 16y ago
Wow... that's worse than I thought. I've often wondered if part of the problem with mismanagement and corruption in government is that politicians are actually underpaid. Anyone really good wants to go into business or marketing, fields that demand similar skills but that pay way better. Corruption becomes a problem because it's the only way to get a raise...
- evilduck 16y ago
  Not necessarily just politicians, but government workers in general. Low level people like janitors are generally overcompensated compared to their peers, but higher positions like programmers, scientists, analysts, managers, etc, typically make far less than their industry counterparts. I personally know a few government scientists who make about 40% of their industry peers. Because of that, I think you see a lot of corruption, indifference, or laziness due to workers "compensating" for the pay differences. It certainly doesn't help morale.
cjoh 16y ago
170k in US.
- Retric 16y ago
  £65k = ~98.8k in the US. But, even still 170k is penuts to the type of people that can get those jobs.
  - cjoh 16y ago
    Sorry, i meant 170k is how much members of congress get paid
baha_man 16y ago
> In the UK, being a Member of Parliament, you get around £65k. Yes, but until recently their salaries were being supplemented by very generous expenses. They were also allowed to take on other work, subject to certain rules. > Even the prime minister is on less pay than several civil servants which is ridiculous. Former prime ministers can earn a fortune, however, just look at Tony Blair. Retired MPs can also cash in, to a lesser extent, on their time in office.
- axod 16y ago
  >> "Former prime ministers can earn a fortune, however, just look at Tony Blair. Retired MPs can also cash in, to a lesser extent, on their time in office. " Right. Which IMHO is a bad idea. PM's are paid a bad salary, but know that they can go work for big.co after they're done being PM. That leaves them wide open to corruption.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    A good argument for giving them a Barony and kicking them into the House of Lords, perhaps?
raystar 16y ago
By what measure is 65k a small amount of money, from what i remember the average wage in the uk is ~26k, and many full time workers earn much less than this.
- axod 16y ago
  I didn't say it was small. It's certainly small for what an MP/PM entails. Even a middle manager in some average company would expect to be on £65k. So there is a massive disconnect between what members of parliament get paid, and what they would get if they moved into the private sector business world. The issue is that voters as you say, are on average paid a lot less, so they don't understand this point. Personally, I'd like to see the PM paid £1m or so. MPs maybe £250k. I would expect them to be less corruptable and more focussed.
  - raystar 16y ago
    I'm unaware that the wage for a PM is the main motivating interest for most, in this case David Cameron being I assume at least moderately wealthy, the comparison is flawed I feel. I don't agree that paying MPs more would create an environment for less corruption, I have so far seen little restraint in human greed, and even those at the very top of the pay scale are not above eking more out of the system. What would help with corruption, would be a more open lobbying system, restrictions on the jobs MPs can take after leaving parliament and ensuring members of the cabinet cannot be employed when they have obvious biases, a former oil company head being minister for energy for example. Also as is obviously the case in many industries, Health and Social Care being one, the private sector model does not always make sense.
    - axod 16y ago
      I disagree. It's the same with teaching. Why become a teacher of X and get paid Y, when you can just become a professional X and get paid 2Y? I'm in no way saying the private model always makes sense. What I'm saying is that the reason we perhaps have poor choice of MPs, is because all the people who would make great MPs are earning a decent wage in the private business world.
kierank 16y ago
You could argue that considering the public perception of MPs right now £65k isn't too bad for them.
SandB0x 16y ago
Another reason is that to get into politics, graduates normally have to do unpaid internships to get a foot in the door. This is only really an option if your family is well off. The prime minister gets to live in 10 Downing Street, and can look forward to lucrative book deals, after dinner speeches and consulting gigs (Blair was getting £500k to advise JP Morgan). This isn't true for most jobs. It's not such a bad deal, but obviously most people don't get that far.
jacoblyles 16y ago
Singapore tries to keep their public sector compensation on par with corporate executives. It's a good idea IMO.
russell 16y ago
Even more than salary in the US is the cost of getting elected. The CA governors race is going into the 9 digits. It cost millions to elect a congressman, 10's of millions for a senator. The only one with that kind of money are unions, corporations, and rich candidates. The candidates are bought and have to deliver. This is corruption on a massive and pervasive scale. And it's legal.
hboon 16y ago
That would be in Singapore. http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-paid-politicians-in.html http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-p...

by axod 16y ago

api 16y ago

Wow... that's worse than I thought. I've often wondered if part of the problem with mismanagement and corruption in government is that politicians are actually underpaid. Anyone really good wants to go into business or marketing, fields that demand similar skills but that pay way better. Corruption becomes a problem because it's the only way to get a raise...

evilduck 16y ago
Not necessarily just politicians, but government workers in general. Low level people like janitors are generally overcompensated compared to their peers, but higher positions like programmers, scientists, analysts, managers, etc, typically make far less than their industry counterparts. I personally know a few government scientists who make about 40% of their industry peers. Because of that, I think you see a lot of corruption, indifference, or laziness due to workers "compensating" for the pay differences. It certainly doesn't help morale.

cjoh 16y ago

170k in US.

Retric 16y ago
£65k = ~98.8k in the US. But, even still 170k is penuts to the type of people that can get those jobs.
- cjoh 16y ago
  Sorry, i meant 170k is how much members of congress get paid

baha_man 16y ago

> In the UK, being a Member of Parliament, you get around £65k. Yes, but until recently their salaries were being supplemented by very generous expenses. They were also allowed to take on other work, subject to certain rules. > Even the prime minister is on less pay than several civil servants which is ridiculous. Former prime ministers can earn a fortune, however, just look at Tony Blair. Retired MPs can also cash in, to a lesser extent, on their time in office.

axod 16y ago
>> "Former prime ministers can earn a fortune, however, just look at Tony Blair. Retired MPs can also cash in, to a lesser extent, on their time in office. " Right. Which IMHO is a bad idea. PM's are paid a bad salary, but know that they can go work for big.co after they're done being PM. That leaves them wide open to corruption.
- hugh3 16y ago
  A good argument for giving them a Barony and kicking them into the House of Lords, perhaps?

raystar 16y ago

By what measure is 65k a small amount of money, from what i remember the average wage in the uk is ~26k, and many full time workers earn much less than this.

axod 16y ago
I didn't say it was small. It's certainly small for what an MP/PM entails. Even a middle manager in some average company would expect to be on £65k. So there is a massive disconnect between what members of parliament get paid, and what they would get if they moved into the private sector business world. The issue is that voters as you say, are on average paid a lot less, so they don't understand this point. Personally, I'd like to see the PM paid £1m or so. MPs maybe £250k. I would expect them to be less corruptable and more focussed.
- raystar 16y ago
  I'm unaware that the wage for a PM is the main motivating interest for most, in this case David Cameron being I assume at least moderately wealthy, the comparison is flawed I feel. I don't agree that paying MPs more would create an environment for less corruption, I have so far seen little restraint in human greed, and even those at the very top of the pay scale are not above eking more out of the system. What would help with corruption, would be a more open lobbying system, restrictions on the jobs MPs can take after leaving parliament and ensuring members of the cabinet cannot be employed when they have obvious biases, a former oil company head being minister for energy for example. Also as is obviously the case in many industries, Health and Social Care being one, the private sector model does not always make sense.
  - axod 16y ago
    I disagree. It's the same with teaching. Why become a teacher of X and get paid Y, when you can just become a professional X and get paid 2Y? I'm in no way saying the private model always makes sense. What I'm saying is that the reason we perhaps have poor choice of MPs, is because all the people who would make great MPs are earning a decent wage in the private business world.

kierank 16y ago

You could argue that considering the public perception of MPs right now £65k isn't too bad for them.

SandB0x 16y ago

Another reason is that to get into politics, graduates normally have to do unpaid internships to get a foot in the door. This is only really an option if your family is well off. The prime minister gets to live in 10 Downing Street, and can look forward to lucrative book deals, after dinner speeches and consulting gigs (Blair was getting £500k to advise JP Morgan). This isn't true for most jobs. It's not such a bad deal, but obviously most people don't get that far.

jacoblyles 16y ago

Singapore tries to keep their public sector compensation on par with corporate executives. It's a good idea IMO.

russell 16y ago

Even more than salary in the US is the cost of getting elected. The CA governors race is going into the 9 digits. It cost millions to elect a congressman, 10's of millions for a senator. The only one with that kind of money are unions, corporations, and rich candidates. The candidates are bought and have to deliver. This is corruption on a massive and pervasive scale. And it's legal.

hboon 16y ago

That would be in Singapore. http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-paid-politicians-in.html http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-p...