To think Rachel Reeves is just in it for the perks?

[HonestGreyBird]

I can’t shake the feeling that Rachel Reeves, like so many politicians, is just in it for the status, the connections, and the cushy benefits that come with the job. She talks a big game about the economy and working people but when you look at the actual policies and decisions, it feels like she’s more interested in maintaining power than making real change.

AIBU to think she’s just another career politician who loves the perks more than the purpose?

Fuck off with your bad faith bullshit OP. I see you.

You sound deranged OP. She's got a horrible job and people like you adding to the stress by making unfounded remarks about self-interest. Honestly. Find a real advantage-taker and moan about them instead. Perks! 😅I bet you wouldn't swap and, if you did, I guarantee any 'perks' wouldn't be as beneficial as you believe them to be.

Forget it Kemi, I'm still not going to vote for you.

Yes, I do think they can both be present and inevitably will be. I should have said that politicians are not predominantly or even mostly concerned with doing good, but with the exercise of power.

The doing good bit is where it all becomes fractious. I don’t believe any Labour, Tory, SNP etc politician has ever entered government with the intention of harming people or types of people. They follow their political instincts and doctrines for what they would see as the general benefit. This inevitably promotes some interests and demotes others.

Generally, I reject the notion of any party being morally better than another.

Anyway, I do not believe RR wants perks. I think she wants power.

I politely disagree, of course there are self-serving politicians, but not all of them fit that mould. Rachel Reeves, for example, has a strong background in economics and finance and could earn far more in the private sector. Many Labour MPs have impressive qualifications and could be making bigger salaries elsewhere, yet choose public service. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect (or that I think everything they’ve done has been ideal), but it’s unfair to assume none genuinely care.

All the perks in the world wouldn't entice me to do her job, so I doubt it. In exchange for giving up family life almost entirely she gets to quaff deeply from a poisoned chalice while mostly ill-informed and often ill-intentioned morons fling shit at her every hour of every day. Going to the occasional Sabrina Carpenter gig gratis wouldn't balance it out for me.

Out of interest, have you met any politicians? Some are total shits, or just completely deluded, but I think the majority are somewhere on a spectrum between desiring status/power for its own sake, and wanting to improve society.

Ultimately I don't think anyone does anything complicated and difficult (and particularly when it's so public-facing like politics) out of pure altruism, but I would probably rate the 'doing good' motive as higher than you would - perhaps that reflects the ones I've met. Most have a driving cause of one or two specific issues. A high number experienced some kind of early trauma too, but I think that's true for all high achievers.

There's also the case that a lot of them just enjoy politics - the intellectual challenge, the interest in how government actually functions and policies get implemented, the people you get to meet and so on. If nothing else, it's a fascinating job. Teaches you so much about human nature!

She's in it for the same as other politicians. To feather her own nest.

What does this even mean? She could make vastly more money doing something else@

People have such a warped idea about politicians. Obviously some are wronguns - but most actually do want to make the coutnry better, even if you disagree with them.

Accusing Rachel Reeves of being 'in it for the perks' - um, what perks?

Being vilified on a dailly basis?

It’s not so long ago that RR was crucified (on mumsnet) for having a tear on her cheek.

Why doesn’t she feather her nest by being paid vastly more in the private sector and not having the added complication of people trying to knock said nest out of her tree?

The problem is that the more people think this the less likely we are going to get anyone decent wanting to go into politics. I wouldn't want all the abuse for 90k when you could earn twice that in the city and completely fly v under the radar.

Thinking all politicians are awful will eventually become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Rachel Reves is very far down my list of politicians "in it for the perks". Is it because she is a high profile woman?

What perks?

She could earn much more money doing something else.

Yes, probably more than most people, and in different contexts.

To refine my point a bit further, because you raise some interesting points which I think also introduce the ideas of levels of influence and causes close to any particular politician’s heart, I do not believe that ministers in a government go through the mindless process of party preferment, backbench obscurity and of having to spout nonsense they disagree with, unless they have a thirst for power. The greasy political pole sorts out the dogged power seekers from the rest.

An independent councillor on a local council who’s single-mindedly passionate about a nearby canal being cleaned up or saving the local grammar school, that’s different. (Although a monitoring officer I know says that independents are generally the worst people to deal with.)

All true, but how do you distinguish 'thirst for power' from 'thirst for power to change things'. You just can't bring about structural change without power, and you don't get power without the (often mind numbing and undignified) processes you outline.

The trouble with 'independent minded' councillors (or MPs) is at best all they can do is achieve change on single issues. They're more like campaigners, and that's fine - it's an important role. But politics is about collective decision making so ultimately you just have to defend some things which aren't your preferred positions, in exchange for people doing the same for you. Where you draw the line is a matter of personal temperament and personal ethics, I guess.

I'm not surprised your friend found the political independents hardest to deal with - I think they often think 'independence of mind' is a trait unique to them. Other politicians may be equally independent in their personal views and judgments, but more willing to work in coalitions because they think that's how they achieve more. A whole system of 'independents' just wouldn't work. The role of a politician mostly isn't to say exactly what they personally think about everything all the time, but I think that's what people expect more now - not least due to social media

No way, she could get far more of that in private sector. I’d hate to have her job

Rachel Reeves has a PPE degree from Oxford and an Economics Masters from LSE. Most people with those academic qualifications go straight into investment banking. She would have earnt a shed load more money and accessed far more perks if she had done this rather than going into politics.
Who knows why she went into politics. Maybe she hoped to improve things for people?

A thirst for power and a thirst for power for particular ends are the same thing. Not that any politician achieves power in such limited circumstances. They can only pursue their favoured interests as part of a much wider brief.

I read that Reeve's assistants were perplexed at the amount of people who tried to side step her and speak to Starmer before the first budget. I was shocked I tell you at people asking a man instead of the woman in the role.