Politicians pay should be performance based. Most in Parliament at the moment would have to pay to stay.
In all seriousness, an MP's salary used to be similar to a principal of a school....why, I ask, is there a massive difference between them now? Politicians are doing the same jobs, as are principals, yes things have changed in terms of tools etc and no doubt for principals a lot more social issues within their schools. Politicians now have a lot more people at their beck and call and spend billions on top of their salaries on consultants and reports. I bet 50 years ago the politician had a couple of people to rely on to gather information and support them and not much else.
On that basis, our MP's and PM are massively overpaid already.
Most politicians don't have the skill base to make it to senior roles within in the private sector, so why are we paying them as though they have got those skills?
The whole 'compare the salary with the private sector' is flawed because it accepts the obscene rorting of salary that occurs at senior levels of corporations.
Better to set it as a multiple of the median wage.
I could find some sympathy for the politicians who are constantly having to face voters and enquiries, and offer coherent explanations of why whatever the question is, has been determined. However, in light of recent published research into the appropriateness of their experience being suitable for the roles they are assigned in their parliamentary roles, they frequently do not have the depth of knowledge or experience to be able to understand the expanse of the requirements of that role. Ideology is not a sufficient reason to place candidates as our representatives without sufficient knowledge to undertake work of steering the Government appropriately for the general benefit of all those who contribute to their remunerations (salaries, vehicles, expenses, etc). The current government would appear to being involved a rort through their requesting their Remuneration Authority to produce a specific type of outcome, thus depriving that body of the expected independent outcome.
Being an MP has a "glamour quotient". It's similar for journalists and while journos are often lowly ranked in public opinion surveys, in my time as a journo (about 25 years) I very seldom encountered prejudice and routinely experienced an attitude akin to envy. MPs are in a similar if not even better place. It is true they work hard, if they work at it - a 70 hour week for lobby fodder, select committee members. But they want to be there, or they wouldn't be. They pay at the mo is not at all bad, and taking a slight hit - 7.5 per cent is not that much at the level they are earning - isn't unreasonable. The idea that their pay should be close to private sector executives is fanciful. They aren't private setor executives but public servants and public figures. Glamour. Bask in it.
Politicians pay should be performance based. Most in Parliament at the moment would have to pay to stay.
In all seriousness, an MP's salary used to be similar to a principal of a school....why, I ask, is there a massive difference between them now? Politicians are doing the same jobs, as are principals, yes things have changed in terms of tools etc and no doubt for principals a lot more social issues within their schools. Politicians now have a lot more people at their beck and call and spend billions on top of their salaries on consultants and reports. I bet 50 years ago the politician had a couple of people to rely on to gather information and support them and not much else.
On that basis, our MP's and PM are massively overpaid already.
Most politicians don't have the skill base to make it to senior roles within in the private sector, so why are we paying them as though they have got those skills?
The whole 'compare the salary with the private sector' is flawed because it accepts the obscene rorting of salary that occurs at senior levels of corporations.
Better to set it as a multiple of the median wage.
At least that keeps some connection with reality.
I could find some sympathy for the politicians who are constantly having to face voters and enquiries, and offer coherent explanations of why whatever the question is, has been determined. However, in light of recent published research into the appropriateness of their experience being suitable for the roles they are assigned in their parliamentary roles, they frequently do not have the depth of knowledge or experience to be able to understand the expanse of the requirements of that role. Ideology is not a sufficient reason to place candidates as our representatives without sufficient knowledge to undertake work of steering the Government appropriately for the general benefit of all those who contribute to their remunerations (salaries, vehicles, expenses, etc). The current government would appear to being involved a rort through their requesting their Remuneration Authority to produce a specific type of outcome, thus depriving that body of the expected independent outcome.
Being an MP has a "glamour quotient". It's similar for journalists and while journos are often lowly ranked in public opinion surveys, in my time as a journo (about 25 years) I very seldom encountered prejudice and routinely experienced an attitude akin to envy. MPs are in a similar if not even better place. It is true they work hard, if they work at it - a 70 hour week for lobby fodder, select committee members. But they want to be there, or they wouldn't be. They pay at the mo is not at all bad, and taking a slight hit - 7.5 per cent is not that much at the level they are earning - isn't unreasonable. The idea that their pay should be close to private sector executives is fanciful. They aren't private setor executives but public servants and public figures. Glamour. Bask in it.