Politicians get everything for free on expenses near enough and largely got into politics by having the right connections so politicians didn't have to sweat and strive to get what they have earned, the consultancies and directorships they have too are largely due to being politicians

Said like someone who evidently knows no one in politics (who's an establishment stooge now Tirren :basil:)

Yeah they probably do, in terms of wealth for me i have a sliding scale

 

1) Self made entrepreneurs

1= Surgeons/scientists

3) Executives

4) Sportsmen

5) Inherited wealth / politicians / royals

And carers?

And carers?

 

I am talking purely how i rank the 1% wealthiest in terms of level of respect

 

I am talking purely how i rank the 1% wealthiest in terms of level of respect

So how did politicians make your list? Not many of them are in the wealthiest 1%. The same applies to surgeons and scientists.

So how did politicians make your list? Not many of them are in the wealthiest 1%. The same applies to surgeons and scientists.

 

You pretty much would stand a good chance of making the 1% if you earn in excess of £100k a year I would say, certainly £150k a year would get you into the 1%

 

So most politicians if you include basic salary, very generous expenses, consultancies, fees from lobbyists, outside interests, jollys abroad etc would easily pass the £100k mark

 

Surgeons if you include private work and NHS earn easily enough to make the Top 1%

 

 

You pretty much would stand a good chance of making the 1% if you earn in excess of £100k a year I would say, certainly £150k a year would get you into the 1%

 

So most politicians if you include basic salary, very generous expenses, consultancies, fees from lobbyists, outside interests, jollys abroad etc would easily pass the £100k mark

 

Surgeons if you include private work and NHS earn easily enough to make the Top 1%

And scientists? There are very few scientists who earn substantial sums.

 

Some surgeons will just about make the top 1% of earners but I suspect most people would not begrudge them that. The have very specialised skills and they save lives. Of course, some cosmetic surgeons are a different matter.

 

Many executives, however, are a different matter. How many of them (particularly those running companies that were founded long before they were born) really contribute more (in some cases much more) than twice as much to the company in a year than the average member of staff contributes in their entire career?

I can vouch that research scientists at Universities aren't paid that much. Typically I think the high ranking academics actually average out towards the £60k mark. Not much when you think of the work these people are doing. I know incredibly talented people who are creating the next generation of antibiotics and get paid the same as a mid level exec.

 

Money isn't the most important measure. People I do finances for are literally changing the world for the better and imparting that knowledge onto the next generation. These people come up with incredible ideas and go to work for the greater good of mankind, not profit.

Politicians get everything for free on expenses near enough and largely got into politics by having the right connections so politicians didn't have to sweat and strive to get what they have earned, the consultancies and directorships they have too are largely due to being politicians

For god's sake Craig, I've been over how your ridiculous opinion on what you think expenses cover is horrendously outdated before. Go back, read.

Said like someone who evidently knows no one in politics (who's an establishment stooge now Tirren :basil:)

*.*

And scientists? There are very few scientists who earn substantial sums.

 

Some surgeons will just about make the top 1% of earners but I suspect most people would not begrudge them that. The have very specialised skills and they save lives. Of course, some cosmetic surgeons are a different matter.

 

Many executives, however, are a different matter. How many of them (particularly those running companies that were founded long before they were born) really contribute more (in some cases much more) than twice as much to the company in a year than the average member of staff contributes in their entire career?

 

I don't know any CEO's or directors of large companies so i can't vouch for how much work they do or what personal contribution they make but it is a massive responsibility being in charge of thousands of stores and tens of thousands of workers like for example the CEO of Tesco's is

 

The shelf stackers and checkout people on minimum wage put in a great contribution to keeping things tick over but the CEO makes the decisions that make the entire network function, I would imagine he puts in massive amount of hours a week

For god's sake Craig, I've been over how your ridiculous opinion on what you think expenses cover is horrendously outdated before. Go back, read.

 

Expenses have been reformed but MP's salary has gone up by an obscene amount to compensate them for loss of some expenses, my salary went up by 2% this year, MP's are going up by 10 times that, plus they will still have their free travel, their accomodation allowances, their heavily discounted caviar and champagne in the house of commons bar, its a gravy train Tyron

 

If parliament was made up of 650 people with a successful career in business, medical and legal professionals etc that would be more acceptable but the current shower of shit are largely MP's with no proper career or life experience outside of joining a party at uni and becoming a speech writer or special adviser and getting put forward for office

 

Cameron worked as a PR agent, Osborne sold furniture yet these 2 are the most important people in the country, I am not saying they are doing a bad job but neither had the career experience that justifies them being MP's, i am not picking on them merely pointing out examples of unqualified people who became mp's not through talent but through being party stooges, i suspect 600 MP's are in the same boat

Politics should be reformed, instead of a PM have a CEO type who picks the cabinet of his choosing even if they are not MP's, the elected PM can be the chairman

 

The foreign secretary should be a former diplomat

The health secretary should be an active or recently retired surgeon or doctor

The chancellor should be someone who has run a large business at finance director level

The education secretary should be a headmaster who has been head of an academically successful school

The business secretary should be a successful entrepreneur

The defence secretary should be someone who was a general in the army

 

If such people are not MPs then a peerage should be given to them to fast track them into cabinet or have legislation allowing outsiders into the cabinet

 

The CEO too should be a former FTSE100 CEO

Edited September 20, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Expenses have been reformed but MP's salary has gone up by an obscene amount to compensate them for loss of some expenses, my salary went up by 2% this year, MP's are going up by 10 times that, plus they will still have their free travel, their accomodation allowances, their heavily discounted caviar and champagne in the house of commons bar, its a gravy train Tyron

 

If parliament was made up of 650 people with a successful career in business, medical and legal professionals etc that would be more acceptable but the current shower of shit are largely MP's with no proper career or life experience outside of joining a party at uni and becoming a speech writer or special adviser and getting put forward for office

 

Cameron worked as a PR agent, Osborne sold furniture yet these 2 are the most important people in the country, I am not saying they are doing a bad job but neither had the career experience that justifies them being MP's, i am not picking on them merely pointing out examples of unqualified people who became mp's not through talent but through being party stooges, i suspect 600 MP's are in the same boat

Following the expenses scandal, the decision on MPs' pay was given to an outside body - as demanded by a majority of voters. That body recommended a significant increase in pay although not until after the next election. The majority of them work very hard and, in my view, are currently underpaid. Many of them could get a much higher salary outside parliament.

 

Most people who have two major places of work a substantial distance apart will be able to claim travel expenses and accommodation etc. Why should MPs be any different? The MP with the highest travel expenses in the last parliament was the member for Orkney and Shetland, hardly a surprise if you look at a map.

 

When I first got interested in politics, there were very few MPs under about 35. That meant that parliament could not really claim to be truly representative. There were just 27 women MPs, again meaning that any claim the parliament was truly representative was laughable.

 

Now things have probably moved too far in the opposite direction and there are indeed too many MPs who have done little - if anything - outside politics. That is partly because the job has changed so much. There was a time when an MP's annual visit to the constituency was a big event in some places with some MPs only having a vague idea where there constituency was. Do you want to return to that?

 

While I wouldn't place the sort of restrictions on the sort of people appointed to Cabinet posts, I have some sympathy with the idea of bringing in people from outside parliament. That still happens occasionally now - by giving the person concerned a peerage - but I would prefer a way of making such ministers properly accountable to the House of Commons. If you drew up a list of the qualities required to be a good MP and the qualities required to be a good minister, there would be relatively little overlap.

Following the expenses scandal, the decision on MPs' pay was given to an outside body - as demanded by a majority of voters. That body recommended a significant increase in pay although not until after the next election. The majority of them work very hard and, in my view, are currently underpaid. Many of them could get a much higher salary outside parliament.

 

Most people who have two major places of work a substantial distance apart will be able to claim travel expenses and accommodation etc. Why should MPs be any different? The MP with the highest travel expenses in the last parliament was the member for Orkney and Shetland, hardly a surprise if you look at a map.

 

When I first got interested in politics, there were very few MPs under about 35. That meant that parliament could not really claim to be truly representative. There were just 27 women MPs, again meaning that any claim the parliament was truly representative was laughable.

 

Now things have probably moved too far in the opposite direction and there are indeed too many MPs who have done little - if anything - outside politics. That is partly because the job has changed so much. There was a time when an MP's annual visit to the constituency was a big event in some places with some MPs only having a vague idea where there constituency was. Do you want to return to that?

 

While I wouldn't place the sort of restrictions on the sort of people appointed to Cabinet posts, I have some sympathy with the idea of bringing in people from outside parliament. That still happens occasionally now - by giving the person concerned a peerage - but I would prefer a way of making such ministers properly accountable to the House of Commons. If you drew up a list of the qualities required to be a good MP and the qualities required to be a good minister, there would be relatively little overlap.

 

I want to see the right people running the country, if that happens to be 650 men or 650 women or 650 black or asian people so be it

 

But I am against the idea completely of younger people being MPs, there should be no one under 40 IMHO as an MP, it is impossible to have the life skills and the career/business experience to be able to have a job running the country.

 

There are some MPs in their 20s or early 30s it is insane

 

Parliament is essentially GB PLC, now if say Osborne was not an MP and was applying for the job as finance director of Tesco and he had his cv as furniture salesman for his dad would he get an interview for the job? his cv would be tossed in the bin by HR yet he is in the position of finance director of GB PLC, my comments are not a dig at him but an example of how inexperienced people get to a high level in politics

 

No one should be allowed to be selected as an MP unless they have at least 10 years experience in a profession be it running a large business, law, medicine etc

 

The quite brilliant Karren Brady has applied to be an MP at the next election, she is exactly the type that should be getting into parliament not 27 year old speech writers who are still wet behind the ears

Edited September 20, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

I want to see the right people running the country, if that happens to be 650 men or 650 women or 650 black or asian people so be it

 

But I am against the idea completely of younger people being MPs, there should be no one under 40 IMHO as an MP, it is impossible to have the life skills and the career/business experience to be able to have a job running the country.

 

There are some MPs in their 20s or early 30s it is insane

 

Parliament is essentially GB PLC, now if say Osborne was not an MP and was applying for the job as finance director of Tesco and he had his cv as furniture salesman for his dad would he get an interview for the job? his cv would be tossed in the bin by HR yet he is in the position of finance director of GB PLC, my comments are not a dig at him but an example of how inexperienced people get to a high level in politics

 

No one should be allowed to be selected as an MP unless they have at least 10 years experience in a profession be it running a large business, law, medicine etc

 

The quite brilliant Karren Brady has applied to be an MP at the next election, she is exactly the type that should be getting into parliament not 27 year old speech writers who are still wet behind the ears

Oh right, so the likes of Nye Bevan, Ernest Bevin, Denis Skinner etc. should never have been allowed to be MPs? Thankfully we live in a democracy where almost anybody can seek to be an MP without ludicrous restrictions such as that.

Oh right, so the likes of Nye Bevan, Ernest Bevin, Denis Skinner etc. should never have been allowed to be MPs? Thankfully we live in a democracy where almost anybody can seek to be an MP without ludicrous restrictions such as that.

 

So you would be happy to be represented by say a 29 year old who had a career experience of doing a paper round, having a Saturday job, going to university, joining central office straight from university, writing a few speeches for a minister then being fast tracked into parliament?

 

Whatever floats your boat I guess

So you would be happy to be represented by say a 29 year old who had a career experience of doing a paper round, having a Saturday job, going to university, joining central office straight from university, writing a few speeches for a minister then being fast tracked into parliament?

 

Whatever floats your boat I guess

If the constituency next door is Dennis Skinner's then yes.

So you would be happy to be represented by say a 29 year old who had a career experience of doing a paper round, having a Saturday job, going to university, joining central office straight from university, writing a few speeches for a minister then being fast tracked into parliament?

 

Whatever floats your boat I guess

You are putting forward a very good argument for STV, i.e. a system with multi-member constituencies. Under the current system you get one choice of candidate for each party. If you think your preferred party's candidate is unsuitable, that's tough. Under STV you can just vote for other party candidates ahead of them.