-
you want people who can afford to dedicate themselves to the role
Aside from the cost issue, which can be argued multiple ways, the ability for people of modest means to be parliamentarians simply doesn't exist. I don't think that's down to pay at all, and quite frankly half of the bizarre private sector managerial contingent that these arguments are created for aren't exactly the kinds of people we'd like to be in positions of power anyway.
There's clearly a distinct democratic deficit in regular life, largely in the economic sphere, and in that vacuum there's less of an ability for regular people to become political. If normal people have a distinct hatred for basically every politician, which seems to be the case, the answer to that is not to create more distrust through further inequality.
There are plenty of people on low wages in this world who would be absolutely fantastic as an MP but who would never consider it at all. I think we need to ask why that is, rather than fall upon standard financial incentive arguments.
You are reading a single comment by @slippers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
slippers
I disagree - you want people who can afford to dedicate themselves to the role. It's fair to say that the average wage in the UK comes with issues of housing and food affordability which would do the opposite for political mobility (ie people who didn't need the wage would be the only ones who would do it).
What I do think is absolutely sensible it to tie MPs salary increases and pension contributions to national performance so increases in minimum wage / average wag/ GDP etc. Incentivise them to improve outcomes for the population at large. That or tied to public sector wage increases as a whole.
That won't solve rich cunts like Sunak who don't give a shit about the salary but it's a start.