davidjay wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:42 pm
Bones McCoy wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:29 pm
davidjay wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:31 pm
When you compare, say, the salary of an MP to an experienced barrister or accountant, a cabinet minister to a senior partner and the Prime Minister to the CEO of a multi-national, then you do understand the peanuts/monkeys adage, even allowing for generous expenses and allowances. Pay the going rate, prevent outside jobs and they aren't allowed to lobby or work directly with politicians in the future.
On the other hand, it's job that requires no qualifications or certifications, there are no mandatory duties or hours.
I know that some/many of them put in remarkably long hours.
Other's don't. And £75K plus living expenses guaranteed for 5 years is pretty good going if you manage to do the bare minimum.
That's what I'm getting at. Offer better pay and you'll get better candidates.
I get that bit.
I also think the "role" requires turning into more of a "job" with minimum standards of attendance (whatever that means in this virtual world), constinuency service and participation on "Her majesty's business" as opposed to "Unclre Rupert's, or Tufton Street's".
I've heard the arguments against.
They are few (That's not to say without merit) and treated like tedious revealed truth every time the question is raised.
They sound increasingly incongruous to citizens who undergo increasing surveillance at work, down to having toilet breaks timed.
They also sound like aristocratic showboating, as they come form the very body that has attacked working conditions, particularly sick pay.
Like you, I don't disagree with a pay rise.
I do think we need to attach guarantees of "supplied value" to that extra.
The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. Aristotle