In the news

I agree but I think this is where the nutcases can come in - ideology is strongly felt on both sides, and the ambition push us towards a libertarian state or to get rid of all migrants might be felt just as strongly as an ambition to provide more help.

I do think that some people in parliament who just want to do a good job and are competent but are relatively moderate in their political views might be a good thing…

No of course, and there’s never a guarantee against that with people who are elected. But the current system means people who are competent enough to earn more but don’t want to suffer a pay cut don’t apply - so they’ll always be wanting something to compensate for that if they’re to do the job.

That might be a desire to help people (good) or it might be a suspicion they’ll make contacts they can milk through being a politician (bad).

Of course, but there are also loads of really good people!

I'm aware this arsehole of a country will probably vote in a bunch of dickheads I disagree with on most things, but at least it would be representative and the job would be actual fucking work, and there's already a bunch of dickheads in charge who disagree with on most things.

I do think that some people in parliament who just want to do a good job and are competent but are relatively moderate in their political views might be a good thing

100% agree, I just don't think money is the way to attract them or any guarantee of moderate political views.

Earning more money isn't a display of competence, it's often, but not always a display of privilege, connections, luck and sometimes hard work and competence. Not earning lots of money isn't a display of incompetence, although it can be.

I don't count anything south of the river.

Badly paid because your job is a 'vocation' for sure (don't go into conservation), not met any idle rich, hobbyist or nutters yet, but guessing austerity and massive staff cuts meant they had to buck up or fuck off.

Ben doesn't seem to be doing the whole second job thing right, thought they were supposed to be low hours and big pay
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/tory-has-time-to-be-an-mp-even-though-he-does-60-hours-of-extra-paid-work-a-week-298977

Does fptp exacerbate this? In a more representative Parliament, folks would be kept more honest surely?

(Full disclosure - i live on the Catford side of Forest Hill)

Is that the side you fell off it? :)

Being an MP was unpaid until the early 20th century. Pay was introduced to make it viable for people who did not have an independent source of income.

Same problem as in ancient Athens ... plus ça change ...

Not necessarily in that order

I don’t know, to be honest - maybe? I guess Pr would get rid of safe seats where the MP can get away with murder.

I agree, well paid doesn’t mean good necessarily - there are no guarantees. But I am not saying that all well paid people should be MPs - just that there is a risk that the current pay is sufficiently low that some good people are put off. If I think how much I’d want to be paid to do the job, with no job security and a hugely elevated degree of personal risk / abuse, it would be a lot.

Have you seen Grant Shapps previous work experience, there's no way he should be paid the equivalent of a senior director.

I’m not suggesting that we simply pay the current twats more and expect them to get magically better- but that if we make being an MP a viable career path for talented people who would otherwise choose law/science/finance/media/etc we might eventually balance out the Redwoods.

I also know two people who were from single-parent, working class backgrounds. Both got firsts. Both made remarkable progress in their professional careers

And there's class of course. Someone who didn't grow up with connections will have a much harder time deciding to take a break from their decently paid engineering career (or whatever) for an exhausting gig halfway across the country that could spit them out again in four years time.
Meanwhile mediocre upper middle class MPs who are likely to lose the next round of elections can just start putting out the feelers in their network and land a cushy PR gig.
So yeah, taking that risk should be compensated for. Maybe a perk could be preferential access to civil service jobs back in their constituency for MPs who doesn't get re-elected?

A house is enough, right? Pretty easy to soak up most of your post-tax income on mortgage payments

I’m currently paying mortgages on a house with under the average UK income, the extra 30k or so (give or take with taxes) just mean I can pay it off sooner.

Interesting idea but isn’t the risk we pollute a high quality civil service with people who are elected for reasons other than competence/ intelligence? And who may find it harder than most to be unbiased.

Fair - my point was not ‘you have to have this income to do this’ so much as ‘it’s actually pretty easy to spend a tonne more without it being some sort of super luxurious lifestyle”.

Have 2 kids, want a 3 bed in London with a garden for them to play in? It gets expensive quick

Bloody hell. They earn enough - just cut off the access to the money gun and make it a job that (as hopefully the majority of MPs) want to do for the greater good. If you are that venal and self-serving (Cox, Paterson et al) you can fuck off and get a regular job elsewhere.

Can't be bothered to read all the MPs pay stuff but I'll have my say anyway. I support a pay rise under the assumption that higher quality people will be attracted who will then out compete hobby politicians (goldsmith) or mps who are there to further their own business interests (reese-mogg).

I'll grant you the assumption is simplistic but it looks well shown that the quality of MPs is pretty low.

Have 2 kids, want a 3 bed in London with a garden for them to play in? It gets expensive quick

According to this data (recent sales, just grabbed from home.co.uk), the median price of a 3 bed in London is £775k. How much do first time buyers need for a deposit? 10%?

You'll need £77k deposit and a combined household income of £174k to afford that.

1 Attachment

Yeah, there's that risk. I'd suggest there'd be a bias in their favour when applying, not a guaranteed job waiting for them. And if you clearly fucked up as an MP, then you can forget about it, the local constituents will know about your poor performance better than anyone else.

The job would have to be in the constituency you represented. For two reasons; this means you can't use the preferential access to just stick around in London because you can't be arsed to move back. Also, you were the person the constituents voted into parliament, so in most cases you must at least be reasonably competent compared to the local competition for that job.

A man dressed as a dolphin got more votes than Farage, so that checks out.