Britain - The Official Thread

[ExigeEvan]

It's a very good point, raised at a very bad time. The problem is that politicians are paid very badly.

The Prime Minister, head of Great Britain PLC earns only £142,000. The guy holding the purse strings, worth ~$682 Billion, earns £135,000 from his ministerial position (But more elsewhere I'm sure).

Now consider that CEO of private companies earn billions for doing a good job, and that even heads of charities earn more money than the PM, it gives you an idea how poor the pay is relative to the power and responsibility.

That's not to say they should be paid more, the fact their performance and pay rises is largely decided within their own little bubble means they should quite rightly shut-up and put-up.

 

[Liquid]

The difference between the wheelbarrows of readies the CEOs earn is that that is private money. Even if we disagree with it from a moral or jealous point of view, they can throw it about with little to no repercussions on the public purse. Company A earns £1.4 billion? Shareholders give themselves £120 million? Fine. It's their money.

That's compared to politicians and public servants generally. I see your point about about the PM not getting well paid for his job; some MPs are paid more than the PM in total. As an aside, David Cameron's family is incredibly rich in offshore havens. But money that comes out of the public purse should be carefully administered, regardless of the job in question. If the PM gave himself the highest salary in the country, because his job is the 'most important', how incredulous would we all be?

 

[ExigeEvan]

The difference between the wheelbarrows of readies the CEOs earn is that that is private money. Even if we disagree with it from a moral or jealous point of view, they can throw it about with little to no repercussions on the public purse. Company A earns £1.4 billion? Shareholders give themselves £120 million? Fine. It's their money.

And I completely agree. I simply offered the numbers for comparisons sake.

That's compared to politicians and public servants generally. I see your point about about the PM not getting well paid for his job; some MPs are paid more than the PM in total. As an aside, David Cameron's family is incredibly rich in offshore havens. But money that comes out of the public purse should be carefully administered, regardless of the job in question. If the PM gave himself the highest salary in the country, because his job is the 'most important', how incredulous would we all be?

Except the PM doesn't even earn the most in the public sector. There are 172 civil servants that earn more than the PM.

Several of those are in turn in charge of large purse strings, such as the NHS or the MoD. They possibly exist in more precarious positions than the PM does, but they're by no means employed on a contractors rate.

On a hilarious side note, a socialist may argue that the PM should quite rightly earn such a low wage, meanwhile heads of several of the employment Unions earn more!

 

[Famine]

I'm not a socialist and I'd argue he should earn nothing for being Prime Minister - the expenses most of us pay for out of our salaries do not apply to someone holding that office.

It (and the rest of public service) should be the least attractive job going for the mercenary. It should not be done by someone who desires the money and power. It should be done by someone who wants only to serve the population as best they can by effecting whatever change they can to make society better.

 

[Liquid]

It (and the rest of public service) should be the least attractive job going for the mercenary. It should not be done by someone who desires the money and power. It should be done by someone who wants only to serve the population as best they can by effecting whatever change they can to make society better.

Hear, hear.

And I cannot deny my left wing roots and latent tendencies, but I don't at all support massive public pay. And while I am somewhat pro-union at times, they shouldn't be holding the Government to ransom over pay.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm not a socialist and I'd argue he should earn nothing for being Prime Minister - the expenses most of us pay for out of our salaries do not apply to someone holding that office.

That's ridiculous. There are responsibilities that exist before office, and a life that exists after. Could you imagine the scrutiny involved if the PM had to request his children's clothing allowance? Or he wished to buy Tesco finest, and not the everyday value range?

It (and the rest of public service) should be the least attractive job going for the mercenary. It should not be done by someone who desires the money and power. It should be done by someone who wants only to serve the population as best they can by effecting whatever change they can to make society better.

And yet that is what we have in top office now. Several millionaires from wealthy family that care little for the income they get from the state. They could be earning far more in the private sector. Are these the selfless servants you expect?

 

[Famine]

That's ridiculous.

Not even close.

There are responsibilities that exist before office, and a life that exists after. Could you imagine the scrutiny involved if the PM had to request his children's clothing allowance? Or he wished to buy Tesco finest, and not the everyday value range?

Should probably think a bit harder about whether they want the job then, really.

And yes, I can imagine it. Someone who has to live like 65% of the people he's serving is a much better bet than someone who wouldn't know how to if he tried - but says he does.

And yet that is what we have in top office now. Several millionaires from wealthy family that care little for the income they get from the state. They could be earning far more in the private sector.

And they do. And are.

They're only millionaires because they have to be to get there. For that matter they're only Conservative/Labour because they have to be to get there. We'd see a damn sight more honesty if we had a few more honest people.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Should probably think a bit harder about whether they want the job then, really.

And yes, I can imagine it. Someone who has to live like 65% of the people he's serving is a much better bet than someone who wouldn't know how to if he tried - but says he does.

I think we should be electing the most capable person to do the job, and not the one most prepared to live like a monk.

 

[Famine]

And how's that working out for you?

Oh yes, that's right, we keep voting for people who want to rule us and tell us what to do rather than serving us and listening to what we tell them. The job of government is to serve, only they and a significant chunk of the voter population don't seem to have noticed. We don't even know who's the most capable at the job because 90% of people think it's a different job and it's only open to an elite few who tie their colours - their very naive of reality colours - to one of two masts.

And it'll never change so long as there's a comfortable, successive generations career in it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So you propose the alternative, a race to the bottom where the best option is the one that promises the most for the smallest price.

That's always worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

 

[Famine]

It's never been tried - or at least not wholly - in politics. Simply because people don't realise the people in charge are... them. They think it's the guys in suits who convene in a palace.

There was this one time a group of people decided to start a new country and limit the power of government - even saying it wouldn't disarm the population in case government got a bit uppity and became like the one they just got rid of.

It went well for a while there - then some folk got complacent, forgot who was in charge and we ended up with a $2tn race between two guys heading up two groups to see who'd be most in charge (no room for anyone else) and make government much more uppity than the one they got rid of and disarm them simultaneously. Say what you like about them, but they sure do learn quick.

Of course elsewhere on the planet, they just give up everything to some guy who says he's in charge and shoots everyone who disagrees until someone shoots him. In some respects, that's more of a meritocracy at least.

 

[PeterJB]

Famine has a point, though I think the PM should at least earn something for running the Government. If politicians earn't less then they currently do then they would (hopefully) be more sympathetic to the position that the majority of the population are in, and if all of the top earners in the country earn't less then the redistribution of money could make our position a less sympathetic one...

 

[Leo0308]

speaking as someone who works with politicians day in/day out in Westminster, Cardiff and Brussels it continues to impress me just how 'in touch' the vast majority of them really are.

 

[hellnback]

Adding to Famines point, and I'm definitely NOT left wing.

Potentially, they could be retrospectively 'paid', when their 'service' is completed..., dependent upon the time they spent in Public service with a 'role importance multiplier', (PM down in importance).

The carrot?

To steal from Armegeddon...

Rockhound: [shouting from balcony] Harry!

Harry Stamper: [motions back at Rockhound] Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.

[pauses]

Harry Stamper: Ever.
"We don't want to pay taxes... ever..."

Of course I'm not suggesting quite that much of a 'discount' but hell for some it could be one hell of a carrot.

Would it solve the current situation though? Ultimately, would it end up attracting the same people? Maybe worse people?

On a side note, New Zealands PM is from wealth gained as a foreign exchange dealer. However, he dontes is PM salary to a charity each year, therefore is working 'without salary'. Before someone says 'but', all his pecuniary interests have to be listed, so decisions aren't 'tainted'.

 

[TheCracker]

Famine has a point, though I think the PM should at least earn something for running the Government. If politicians earn't less then they currently do then they would (hopefully) be more sympathetic to the position that the majority of the population are in, and if all of the top earners in the country earn't less then the redistribution of money could make our position a less sympathetic one...

They earn a wage whilst in office, but i imagine they have very little they need to spend it on, i should think virtually everything is provided for them. I think i'd be right in saying that former Prime Ministers continue to earn that wage for the rest of their lives, long after they retire from office and even politics in general. They'll also be invited to plenty of very lucrative post-PM after-diner speaking gigs, siting on the board of multi-nationals etc etc.

*edit* Not quite right, they receive a pension of £97,125 per annum plus expenses if they continue to perform any duties.

speaking as someone who works with politicians day in/day out in Westminster, Cardiff and Brussels it continues to impress me just how 'in touch' the vast majority of them really are.

David, is that you?

 

[Leo0308]

nah, just talking from experience.

not paying them would not work at all.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

Anyone heard of the stabbing in south east London?! just seen it on the news now, just horrific!!

 

[mattythedog]

I have. I sort of get the feeling we're not being told the full story; yes it's awful, but calling a COBRA meeting would be bit OTT for just a murder.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

they were saying on the BBC Six o'clock News just now that its reported (..and iam using that word strongly!) that he was hacked to death by two men of Muslim descent, the victim was wearing a Help For Heroes shirt and they were shouting 'Allah Akbar' whilst carrying out the attack...

...and it turns out that the incident was filmed and is now online!

 

[Touring Mars]

I have. I sort of get the feeling we're not being told the full story; yes it's awful, but calling a COBRA meeting would be bit OTT for just a murder.

Apparently it was a soldier and he was beheaded in the street by two men, who allegedly made comments consistent with Islamist extremism... the BBC are not reporting the beheading bit, but various other sources are. Apparently ITV showed footage of one of the murderers with bloodied weapons in his hand, footage apparently came from someone with a mobile phone...

 

[Famine]

I'll just leave this unbelieveable bit of crass dumbnosity here:

 

[DK]

If I was the guy who filmed the murderer's statement, I would be crapping myself.

 

[lbsf1]

This is a sickening crime and all, however I'm slightly confused as why Theresa May has called for "Cobra" the emergency response committee. This attack seems to not be in a string of attacks and since the purportrator has been caught then the danger to the public is limited, its not like the murderer is still on the run.

Whilst the attack was obviously racially motivated I struggle to see why this one has such a different response whilst there have been other attacks before that haven't been taken as seriously and haven't caused the same reaction. The only difference I can see is that this is being called terrorism whilst the others have been either called stabbings or shootings.

Will the government ever learn that the best way to stop terrorists getting their aim isn't to rise to the bait, obviously treat the criminal as a murder and lets the courts decide what to do with him, however making this huge deal out of the terrorist act is simply helping the terrorists gain publicity and spreading the "terror". You could possibly describe it by using the internet adage of not feeding the trolls.

 

[dhandeh]

It's not every day that a British soldier has his head removed on British streets by scum shouting Islamic slogans, whilst getting ordinary people to film out. That's why they have called a COBRA meeting.

As far as I can see it, it's the media going to town on this. But you're right, just sweep it under the carpet and the whole problem/situation will just go away.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's possible that such a shocking incident, perpetrated by two black guys who are also apparently Islamic extremists, could spark either demonstrations or retaliatory attacks, possibly even riots. The BBC are reporting that the EDL (English Defence League) are planning a demonstration in Woolwich this evening, for example. I doubt that anything will happen, since the victim was a soldier and the murderers seem like a pair of nutjobs - but imagine if it were the other way around...

 

[lbsf1]

It's not every day that a British soldier has his head removed on British streets by scum shouting Islamic slogans, whilst getting ordinary people to film out. That's why they have called a COBRA meeting.

As far as I can see it, it's the media going to town on this. But you're right, just sweep it under the carpet and the whole problem/situation will just go away.

I'm not saying to sweep it under the carpet, I'm saying to treat it as a very serious issue, however not to make it a very public issue. The person has been arrested by police and will face criminal proceedings along with interrogation.

This issue however doesn't pose any immediate danger to the public so what is the need for an emergency response meeting??, its only spreading the terror that the terrorists want.

 

[dhandeh]

*facepalm*

 

[Liquid]

I'm not seeing conclusion jumping, I'm seeing entire pole vaults over a pool of poorly thought out conclusions on my Twitter and Facebook.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm not seeing conclusion jumping, I'm seeing entire pole vaults over a pool of poorly thought out conclusions on my Twitter and Facebook.

Already the talk of Lynch mobs has started in my local!

 

[Dotini]

The US media is just beginning to report that a uniformed soldier was carved up by a machete-wielding man on the streets of London.

No government anywhere will welcome the idea of its soldiers slaughtered by smallfolk in broad daylight on the high street of the capital. If this is compounded by rioting en masse, the rulers will seem to lack a certain credibility.