In the news

No, it wasn’t.

Not making any apologies for him as a person, but I thought it was pretty difficult for barristers to reduce their tax as its so clearly income from a trade personally earned.

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

housing system is f*cked up, yes, which means you need a big income

Vicious circle, innit.

Don't forget Dominatrices

Yeah completely, I just find it weird in a London based forum for so many people to be arguing that people might feel they need money to get by (even whilst recognising that the fact they need so much shows the system isn’t working well).

The people who this hits seem to be those who aren’t independently wealthy but who have done pretty well so have relatively high incomes. That seems to be a demographic we should want some of in parl.

Instead, we get a mix of (1) old money / already minted and hence full Thatcherite; (2) people who couldn’t earn more elsewhere; and (3) ideologues (which could be a good or bad thing, depending what ideals they are pushing)

Exactly. Make it a valid career choice - with pay equivalent to the responsibility, which would mean that people who would otherwise be senior directors in other avenues of life would consider being an MP.

Making it a vocation/calling also ensures you get the idle rich/hobbyists and nutters.

Making it a vocation/calling also ensures you get the idle rich/hobbyists and nutters.

Not wanting to whatabout, but isn’t that partly why some roles in the civil service are so badly paid?

I just find it weird in a London based forum

Isn't there like 6 people who actually live in London on here these days?

pretty much nobody expressed the slightest desire to become an MP.

Only one person I know did. They didn't end up being an MP, but they are partners(-in-abject-capitalist-fuck-the-rest-of-the-world-if-not-crime) with on of the most venal.

On person I was friend-in-law with was an MP in Scotland. I didn't know him personally, but as he is a tory, I'll happily assume he was a cunt.

You can get midget doms.

Ask me more details on my AMA Fri at 8.

Couldn't agree more.

I know two people from university who are now Tory MPs (one a treasury minister, the other a PPS to one of the most senior roles in cabinet). Neither of them was remarkable academically. Both of them were the sort of weirdos who were prominent in the union and the student conservative association. Both of them were from very wealthy backgrounds. Both of them had bang-average professional careers (law and finance), where they were left behind by their more able peers. Nonetheless, they will be running the country in the near future.

I also know two people who were from single-parent, working class backgrounds. Both got firsts. Both made remarkable progress in their professional careers (engineering and economics respectively). Both are Labour supporters, and would probably walk straight into the front bench on ability. They deservedly earn six-figure salaries. Wouldn't you want them in parliament? They would be running circles around the first two chancers.

waves

Dominatrices

Is this actually the plural of dominatrix? I really hope it is. That is all.

I think its a bit weird to assume you need to be super ambitious and money grabbing to want more than £80k / year.

That's not strictly what I'm saying, but looking at the average wage over country is a better way of finding people to represent the average person in the country. £80k a year is a lot of money, it's not millionaire richness in a lot of cases but you're like comfortably top 5%. I think things should be geared towards bringing the average wage up and the people in charge should understand what it is to live on an average wage, even an apparent living wage so we are all better off. Yes the housing market is stupid, yes it's extra stupid in London where the average wage is about £37k and everywhere else barring the South East and East it's below £30k, and they're only just over, but that's a problem that needs looking at from the other end, not making sure the top few earners can afford the ungodly costs of living.

Are we arguing anyone who wants a moderately comfortable lifestyle is Thatcherite scum?

Obviously not, but a moderately comfortable lifestyle should be attainable for everyone and £80k per year is dream luxury for most, even saying that the only* £80k workers I want to pull down are the MPs, to the level of everyone else so that they help build up that level rather than shitting on it.

* Also very happy to pull down much higher "earners", no one needs fucking billions.

So after tax (and assuming you need somewhere to live and to eat) impossible.

Depends, do you count Catford?

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

So after tax (and assuming you need somewhere to live and to eat) impossible

As a single person with single family income, yes.

I was under the impression public sector workers had to buy their own milk, tea bags etc.

I was surprised by this in my first public sector job. Idk why, I'm not a fan of wasted public money, but it seemed very trivial compared to £800pa or whatever it was for our ITC contractor to provide a mobile to a consultant on a stonking day rate.

I agree with all of that about bringing average wages up (or cost of living down) - that obviously should be the aim. But if we aren’t there yet, and assuming most people considering being MPs are realistic enough to accept they won’t be elected and be able to fix that immediately, so we have to live with where we are - and I do think there are many, many very capable people who don’t think it is worth the money (how much would you need to be paid to be subject to the death threats to you and your family?)

The issue is that a lot of the people who are left wanting to do it are weird. Do I know if more money would help? Dunno - it would probably help some, and not all - but I just think that arguing the only people who should do it should want to for the love means that, along with those with a genuine desire to help people, you get those with a genuine desire to e.g. stop refugees, or a genuine desire to make connections and be a dodgy f*ck.

I don’t think more pay fixes the latter on its own - I think more pay would be a quid pro quo for much more restrictive rules on outside interests and other employment.

You never want just one.

I also think ambitions and ambitiousness is good but shouldn't be solely related to money, if someone has the ambition to represent the people where they live on a national scale for the benefit of all then that's more attractive in an MP than someone who has the ambition of earning £150k a year to own the house they want and put their kids through private school and politics is a route to do that rather than law or finance or selling cardboard or whatever. A desire to do a good job with some competency is better than being competent at earning enough in the private sector and turning your hand to running the country.

Can we agree that six-figure pay is also common in senior roles in the public sector and unions? Why does it make sense in those roles?

much more restrictive rules on outside interests and other employment.

This bit I can get behind. I'm also aware I'm being a bit idealistic here, I'm angry and certain enough to know what I want, but cynical and browbeaten enough to know it's futile.

There are some really shit people earning the money some of you are claiming would fix the problem, a high salary isn't a guarantee of competence