AIBU to think we need MPs who can earn £1million a year

[Lovelyricepudding]

I don't know what the answer is but AIBU to think we need people who companies think it is worth paying £1million a year as MPs? The quality of most of our MPs is pretty rubbish and £82k a year is not a salary to attract big-hitters of the calibre we need. It sounds like Geoffrey Cox QC may have spent too little time focused on MP work and it is obviously wrong for MPs to benefit from external work gleaned due to their role as an MP. But how do we attract the most capable people into parliament when they can be so successful outside parliament?

Actually l think we need mp’s who’ve been unemployed, lived on universal credit, fought in Afghanistan, than a load of self important millionaire tosspots. As in the current government.

So it a no from me .

lol ok

I agree with you. For a London or Board level wage £82k isn't particularly high.

What arse said ^^

Hope could a bunch of millionaires cut universal credit back down? Because they can’t imagine a life where an extra £20 makes any difference to anything, that’s why. Completely out of touch with the lives of the people affected by their decisions.

*how could

Many of the MPs raking it in with 'jobs' on the side have no particular skills or expertise. They are being paid for access - old boys network on a colossal scale.

MPs are supposed to be common citizens elected to represent commoners. This requirement would literally be deciding that only the upper class can represent commoners. That’s what the House of Lords is for....not the House of Commons.

And let’s face it: the current shower being paid millions, are an example of why they shouldn’t do it.

You've got it the wrong way round: these people aren't somehow more capable than the rest of us, they're being paid all that by companies who want a government MP on their books because that's how you get contracts. If you think the BVI didn't choose Geoffrey Cox as their lawyer because of his access and contacts as much as his ability as a lawyer, I've got a bridge to sell you.

What we need in parliament is a mix of people with different skills and experiences. The ones who can earn a lot more than 83k, which is a phenomenal amount of money and more than enough to live comfortably on, should be there because they want to do the work.

They do t pay people who actually do useful jobs (e.g. nurses, doctors, paramedics, social workers) that sort of money, so no, we definitely don’t need to pay MPs that.
Also it’s not about the salary for an MP - it’s all about the extra benefits, bonuses, speaking fees, second jobs, second houses, expenses. They earn way more than their basic salary. It’s a gravy train for fat cats.

Wow! Is this a joke?

£1m for what? So they can be even more out of touch?

A lot of them aren't being paid for their brains or special skills, they're being paid for access.
Access which allows them to bypass normal procurement /quality issues so the taxpayer basically pays their mates for shoddy goods and services.

"it is obviously wrong for MPs to benefit from external work gleaned due to their role as an MP"

Exactly. Unfortunately, it looks as if the vast majority (and possibly all) get these high-paying board memberships / consultancies purely on the basis that they are an MP. We are kidding ourselves if we think there's any other reason.

Does anyone know of any MP who is employed outside Westminster because they have specialist skills? I can maybe see a barrister being employable is such a capacity (although I would still wonder how they had the time) but I can't think of any other.

We need talented people from all walks of life, including people who can command £1m a year. However, there’s a difference between having the ability to earn that much and actually doing so when the time spent detracts from your job representing your constituents. Which is the issue here.

A lot of them aren't being paid for their brains or special skills

No one in this government has either of these😁

I think it would be quite hard to argue against Geoffrey Cox being a great lawyer and debater who would be earning a ton of money whether or not in parliament.

The question is how do we get him to use these skills in parliament.

I think this is what’s wrong with capitalism. We assume high salaries/high fees are some kind of marker of real value. It’s not. I’d rather have a Parliament packed with people with real experience.

I think we need a mix of people from all walks of life. I wouldn't preclude anyone who has any kind of life experience. The more varied the experiences, the better the Parliament!

@DeliaDinglehopper

I think this is what’s wrong with capitalism. We assume high salaries/high fees are some kind of marker of real value. It’s not. I’d rather have a Parliament packed with people with real experience.

Er, that’s not due to capitalism. It’s left over from the days of nobility/aristocrats where they were the only ones with wealth so wealth was therefore the visible social marker of a superior class/ranked person.

@shoofly

A lot of them aren't being paid for their brains or special skills, they're being paid for access. Access which allows them to bypass normal procurement /quality issues so the taxpayer basically pays their mates for shoddy goods and services.

This. And other countries have former astronauts and teachers and soldiers and farmers. The UK has a bunch of career wankers with zero perspective.

Earning millions isn't the indication of either skill at running a country or empathy and understanding towards those you represent.

That's going to do wonders for diversity...

@DeliaDinglehopper

I think this is what’s wrong with capitalism. We assume high salaries/high fees are some kind of marker of real value. It’s not. I’d rather have a Parliament packed with people with real experience.

Yes, I'm not actually aware that earning any specific sum has ever been accurately tied to any moral or intellectual worth.

@WhereYouLeftIt

"it is obviously wrong for MPs to benefit from external work gleaned due to their role as an MP"

Exactly. Unfortunately, it looks as if the vast majority (and possibly all) get these high-paying board memberships / consultancies purely on the basis that they are an MP. We are kidding ourselves if we think there's any other reason.

Does anyone know of any MP who is employed outside Westminster because they have specialist skills? I can maybe see a barrister being employable is such a capacity (although I would still wonder how they had the time) but I can't think of any other.

There’s at least one doctor who still does shifts in A&E.

I don’t think a person should be excluded from being an MP because they are capable of extremely high earnings.

I think they should be excluded from being an MP if they think they should be able to continue earning that on the side while they’re supposed to be working as an MP.

Many people in high paid roles are not there because they are ‘high calibre’. There are some, yes, but there are a great many white, privately educated men in particular, who are brought up to seek out these roles, regardless of their talents. I’ve seen it a lot in public/ charity sector particularly - some people shoot for the top regardless of how shit they are and make it, others who possess all the skills but are less ‘go getter’ types stay at lower levels because they want to help people rather than aspire to get to the top.