Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.
Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.
No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.
We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.
Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.
Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.
No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.
We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.
Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.
Paying ok money to the people who ultimately decide the fate of the country doesn’t seem, erm, ok to me.
I’ve had this battle as both an officer and a councillor at local authorities. Getting vfm for a public servant’s wage is a small sweet spot but 90% of the time wages are far below that sweet spot.
Eg, I get paid approx 30% below market value in my current role but I suck it up as the pension is pretty good, holidays and flexi time mean I get to spend loads of time with my kids and my long suffering wife earns enough that I don’t have to worry about maximising my earnings, plus it’s still a good salary. That said, as soon as my kids don’t want to be seen dead with me I’m almost certainly back off to the private sector to get paid what the market determines I’m worth and I don’t get even 1% of the shoite and stress that MPs have to deal with. The 52 days a year (yep, I had to double check the maths too when they were selling the job to me) in annual leave and flexi will be hard to leave behind, though.
Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.
Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.
No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.
We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.
Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.
The instability is kind of the point though. MPs selected by a national list might have more stability but is that a good thing? I also think that MPs can barter their influence into a second career so I'm not too bothered by their prospects if they get unelected.
To me, second roles should be limited to those where there is a requirement to keep skills current. But even that is dubious when you consider how much time a doctor needs to keep their skills current; how can they be a full-time representative in that instance? Better that the NHS recognises career breaks and gives doctors a route back in after their public service.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 9:43 am
Paying ok money to the people who ultimately decide the fate of the country doesn’t seem, erm, ok to me.
I’ve had this battle as both an officer and a councillor at local authorities. Getting vfm for a public servant’s wage is a small sweet spot but 90% of the time wages are far below that sweet spot.
Eg, I get paid approx 30% below market value in my current role but I suck it up as the pension is pretty good, holidays and flexi time mean I get to spend loads of time with my kids and my long suffering wife earns enough that I don’t have to worry about maximising my earnings, plus it’s still a good salary. That said, as soon as my kids don’t want to be seen dead with me I’m almost certainly back off to the private sector to get paid what the market determines I’m worth and I don’t get even 1% of the shoite and stress that MPs have to deal with. The 52 days a year (yep, I had to double check the maths too when they were selling the job to me) in annual leave and flexi will be hard to leave behind, though.
Know the feeling! I moved out of the civil service as it just wasn't worth it anymore.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 9:43 am
Paying ok money to the people who ultimately decide the fate of the country doesn’t seem, erm, ok to me.
I’ve had this battle as both an officer and a councillor at local authorities. Getting vfm for a public servant’s wage is a small sweet spot but 90% of the time wages are far below that sweet spot.
Eg, I get paid approx 30% below market value in my current role but I suck it up as the pension is pretty good, holidays and flexi time mean I get to spend loads of time with my kids and my long suffering wife earns enough that I don’t have to worry about maximising my earnings, plus it’s still a good salary. That said, as soon as my kids don’t want to be seen dead with me I’m almost certainly back off to the private sector to get paid what the market determines I’m worth and I don’t get even 1% of the shoite and stress that MPs have to deal with. The 52 days a year (yep, I had to double check the maths too when they were selling the job to me) in annual leave and flexi will be hard to leave behind, though.
Know the feeling! I moved out of the civil service as it just wasn't worth it anymore.
I know what your pension terms were so you’re not getting too much sympathy from me
Have you ever been to Singapore? I have. The place is swimming with wealth. So of course they pay lots.
Our MPs get an ok salary. I think what we should be more concerned about is the diversity of our MPs. We have too many from law and PPE background. I understand these things are important, but we narrow the sum total of the life experience of our MPs. Especially the ones who get close to power.
No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.
We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.
Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.
...as I said, its only one part of the equation, and imo one part that should be considered. How would you make it a more stable career out of interest- what would these roles look like?
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:45 am
No, but I do know Singapore deliberately aimed to get good talent into their govt by raising how much they paid. Whether they have or not is another question.
We may pay OK money, but we signally fail to get OK value collectively. Perhaps paying more might get better talent and life experience. But it’s only one part of the equation to be fair.
Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.
...as I said, its only one part of the equation, and imo one part that should be considered. How would you make it a more stable career out of interest- what would these roles look like?
It would depend on the individual case of course. But there I think the following is important:
1) A guarantee of a job somewhere within government immediately after ending as an MP.
2) Assistance finding a job in the private sector and retraining as required.
3) Government institution which serves as a consultancy for businesses.
These are just some ideas, maybe I didn't think things through. But the key point is - why should I give up my job to become an MP if I might be unemployed 5 years later? It is not attractive. It attracts disproportionately people who aren't averse to risk.
Rather than paying more, we should have more formal roles for former MPs. It needs to be structured much more as a stable career. The instability of the job is a problem, and I don't think raising the salary is the best approach to solve this.
...as I said, its only one part of the equation, and imo one part that should be considered. How would you make it a more stable career out of interest- what would these roles look like?
It would depend on the individual case of course. But there I think the following is important:
1) A guarantee of a job somewhere within government immediately after ending as an MP.
2) Assistance finding a job in the private sector and retraining as required.
3) Government institution which serves as a consultancy for businesses.
These are just some ideas, maybe I didn't think things through. But the key point is - why should I give up my job to become an MP if I might be unemployed 5 years later? It is not attractive. It attracts disproportionately people who aren't averse to risk.
reads like sinecures for the unelectable . But yes, some more thought needs to be given, assuming anyone bar us thinks there is problem
… and a decent chunk of them will have taken a pay cut to be on that.
We’re all on here spending most of the time moaning about the quality of our political leaders yet when it comes to an obvious barrier to attracting better quality we kick ourselves in the bollocks.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:08 pm
… and a decent chunk of them will have taken a pay cut to be on that.
We’re all on here spending most of the time moaning about the quality of our political leaders yet when it comes to an obvious barrier to attracting better quality we kick ourselves in the bollocks.
I'm saying that it's a problem that a SPAD gets a higher base salary than an MP...
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:08 pm
… and a decent chunk of them will have taken a pay cut to be on that.
We’re all on here spending most of the time moaning about the quality of our political leaders yet when it comes to an obvious barrier to attracting better quality we kick ourselves in the bollocks.
I'm saying that it's a problem that a SPAD gets a higher base salary than an MP...
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 9:43 am
Paying ok money to the people who ultimately decide the fate of the country doesn’t seem, erm, ok to me.
I’ve had this battle as both an officer and a councillor at local authorities. Getting vfm for a public servant’s wage is a small sweet spot but 90% of the time wages are far below that sweet spot.
Eg, I get paid approx 30% below market value in my current role but I suck it up as the pension is pretty good, holidays and flexi time mean I get to spend loads of time with my kids and my long suffering wife earns enough that I don’t have to worry about maximising my earnings, plus it’s still a good salary. That said, as soon as my kids don’t want to be seen dead with me I’m almost certainly back off to the private sector to get paid what the market determines I’m worth and I don’t get even 1% of the shoite and stress that MPs have to deal with. The 52 days a year (yep, I had to double check the maths too when they were selling the job to me) in annual leave and flexi will be hard to leave behind, though.
Know the feeling! I moved out of the civil service as it just wasn't worth it anymore.
I know what your pension terms were so you’re not getting too much sympathy from me
Know the feeling! I moved out of the civil service as it just wasn't worth it anymore.
I know what your pension terms were so you’re not getting too much sympathy from me
Not as good as my military pension
That was the pension I was talking about. I contemplated applying for an MOD job and had to call a friend in the army to make sure the pension terms I was reading weren’t a misprint.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:25 am
I know what your pension terms were so you’re not getting too much sympathy from me
Not as good as my military pension
That was the pension I was talking about. I contemplated applying for an MOD job and had to call a friend in the army to make sure the pension terms I was reading weren’t a misprint.
Civil service new pension isn’t as good as it used to be. It’s still pretty decent but the private one I’m on now is very comparable. The military pension used to payout after 16 years service, now its 20. Still decent.
