OV9

duncs500 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:37 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:01 am

duncs500 wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:46 pmAs a nation we seem to mostly be consumed with envy towards people that are more successful than we are.

Of all the countries I've lived in (admittedly that not many) the UK seems to be the only one that shows active resentment towards those who are doing or have done well for themselves.

I've always liked the idea of government consisting of a handful of very intelligent, very well-paid individuals. But no.

Agreed, imagine the people who make the decisions that affect millions being rewarded with a salary commensurate with the responsibility?

The reward creates an appeal for the best and brightest and we all win. Would pay for itself too.

Imagine too people that have done well in a variety of challenging situation rather than career politicians who have the public sector malaise instilled for the whole of their working lives.

It's rare to see a career politician these days, most seem to use a job in parliament as a stepping stone to a career in consultancy for arms dealers and oil companies.

I may be out of touch with what people expect but £76k to £150k+ a year is a decent salary isn't it?

People do get paid more in the private sector but as we've seen over the last couple of years just being at the top of a big company doesn't necessarily make you a competent leader .

There must be a way to get competent people in to cabinet positions without having a bidding war with the private sector.

The lack of real world experience is what hamstrings the left constantly. Take the current plan for nationalising water. Now, on the face of it there's a lot to be said for ensuring we have a water supply that isn't there to make a profit. Water is , after all, a basic human right. But they have to take it so far as to say they will sack the "expensive" execs and replace them with people on a capped wage (I think I saw £65k as the top figure?). Yeah, let's have this service run by someone who is willing to accept a wage lower than that of a decent project manager on a medium sized IT project. What could possibly go wrong with that kind of quality at the helm?

Aye, Labour going after "corporate fat cats" while the union leaders that tell them what to do are taking home substantial salaries has never been a good look.

I'm for nationalising basic services as I don't think they should be run for profit but you still have to pay the people running it a decent wage. £65k a year wouldn't be enough for me to take over running part of the national infrastructure for example .

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:40 am
I may be out of touch with what people expect but £76k to £150k+ a year is a decent salary isn't it?

Not particularly for a job in London, no. A newly qualified lawyer after two years training in any large London law firm will earn roughly the lower figure and in US firms well over £100k.

Obviously there is a bit of an anomaly in politics given that you can be elected at 18 with fuck all experience in anything and get £76k - which is a lot for someone pretty much straight out of school.

By contrast the prime minister's salary of just short of £150,000 is just stupid for the pressure and responsibility. Add three noughts on and you're getting in to the ballpark of a reasonable figure.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:18 am Aye, Labour going after "corporate fat cats" while the union leaders that tell them what to do are taking home substantial salaries has never been a good look.

Plus the illicit loans on top:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ondon-flat

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:22 amBy contrast the prime minister's salary of just short of £150,000 is just stupid for the pressure and responsibility. Add three noughts on and you're getting in to the ballpark of a reasonable figure.

Erm - you think the PM should be paid GBP 150,000,000? Isn't that a little excessive?

I was thinking that myself

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:26 am

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:22 amBy contrast the prime minister's salary of just short of £150,000 is just stupid for the pressure and responsibility. Add three noughts on and you're getting in to the ballpark of a reasonable figure.

Erm - you think the PM should be paid GBP 150,000,000? Isn't that a little excessive?

'A' nought! FFS

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:22 am
By contrast the prime minister's salary of just short of £150,000 is just stupid for the pressure and responsibility. Add three noughts on and you're getting in to the ballpark of a reasonable figure.

He also gets the use of a couple of houses thrown in..

£150k would seem low to run the country but you’ve also got to make sure you’re not getting someone who’s only in it for the money. There’s a line somewhere but I’m not sure where it is. £1m?

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:29 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:26 am

GG. wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:22 amBy contrast the prime minister's salary of just short of £150,000 is just stupid for the pressure and responsibility. Add three noughts on and you're getting in to the ballpark of a reasonable figure.

Erm - you think the PM should be paid GBP 150,000,000? Isn't that a little excessive?

'A' nought! FFS

STICK TO FUCKING WORDS, LAWYER FUCKER!!

Being a senior politician opens the door to a huge earning potential. No ex-Prime Minister is poor. The public speaking circuit, book deals, non-Exec board seats, lobbying, ambassadorships etc etc etc.

That much is very true so you do get delayed remuneration if you whore yourself out afterwards.

Again being idealistic but I'd like the country leader to have remuneration commensurate to his or her actual duties WHILST running the country.

Agreed.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:41 am Again being idealistic but I'd like the country leader to have remuneration commensurate to his or her actual duties WHILST running the country.

You have to balance that with the idea that being PM should be seen as a public service imo. Say you're being paid £300k a year with all the fringe benefits that being PM entails (the free houses and so on), you're probably doing alright for cash and as Rev says ex PMs aren't exactly pleading poverty in their retirement either.

I agree in principle but not in reality, if that isn't too ambiguous. Greed, for want of a better word, is good. And so on. Motivate the leader with money.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:49 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:41 am Again being idealistic but I'd like the country leader to have remuneration commensurate to his or her actual duties WHILST running the country.

You have to balance that with the idea that being PM should be seen as a public service imo. Say you're being paid £300k a year with all the fringe benefits that being PM entails (the free houses and so on), you're probably doing alright for cash and as Rev says ex PMs aren't exactly pleading poverty in their retirement either.

The grace and favour houses allow you to rent out your existing property (a la the Camerons) but that only helps you if you have a large expensive property to rent out in the first place.

By all means you can ask people do it for the glory and the honour but then don't be surprised if politicians are by and large narcissistic incompetents.

I’d rather people did it because they really thought they could leave the country in a better state than they found it. As wildly idealistic as that sounds.

Yes me too; unfortunately I live on this planet and that isn't how things work.

I did say that my hope that someone would take on a job because they thought they could do it well was wildly idealistic.