![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Running the country on £170 a day.
Mar. 14th, 2008 10:36 amBefore he became an MP, Michael Heseltine made himself a sizable fortune as a businessman. This was later to come in handy in Parliament. When facing off against his own political party over Westland, the party whips suggested that if he didn't toe the line he'd lose his ministerial post and, it was implied, the personal financial opportunities and higher pay that came with it. As he was already rich, he stuck to his guns as financial threats had no power over him and he became the last government minister until Claire Short* to quit over a matter of principle.
The implication here is twofold - people who have nothing to lose are more likely to act for what they see as the best without thought for personal gain, and party whips keep individual MPs in line with personal financial threats over their own consciences which isn't a very reassuring thing to know about how the country is run.
The leading piece on the news last night was about MP's expenses claims, and how they are granted for things like second homes (so they can live in London during parliamentary session). The undertone of this was that there was something underhand going on - even I was mildly surprised by some of the things they can claim for, like £10,000 for a new kitchen for said second home (Ten grand! For a kitchen! By Crikey!). What struck me the most, however, was the hypocrisy of the news reports and of a lot of people regarding MPs pay and expenses. It's been established that 'public opinion' (whose, exactly?) won't stand for MPs getting pay rises, and so increased expenses allowances have been used to effectively pay them more without a public 'pay rise'. There's been a lot in the media lately about this, and many people seem to think this is outrageous. So do I, for different reasons.
The annual salary for a Westminster MP is about £60,000. This is, to be blunt, fuck all. How anyone can expect highly talented and qualified people who can reasonably expect to earn many times that in business or even the civil service to stand for election is beyond me. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys so it's no surprise that the legislative body of this country is so heavily populated with shaven apes rather than talent, and it's no surprise that the people in Westminster delve so deeply into their expenses when given the opportunity.
My solution? Scrap the current expenses scheme and raise MP salaries - doubling them for starters would be about fair. This might sound odd coming from an anti-politician sort like myself, but it really is the only way to increase the chance of having decent talent in Westminster. The Prime Minister only pulls in £187,000 which is about the same as the chef executive of a decent-sized hospital, so it's not really surprising that we've got someone in the role who would be better suited to that sort of job.
If you want talent, you have to pay for it.
If you want talentless corrupt oafs, then put in place mechanisms that encourage it.
Sadly, it seems the general public and the media would prefer the latter.
*"Michael Heseltine and Claire Short". I'm tempted to put 'porn' at the end of that phrase and google it, but I don't dare. I'm sure some of you lot will now, though.
The implication here is twofold - people who have nothing to lose are more likely to act for what they see as the best without thought for personal gain, and party whips keep individual MPs in line with personal financial threats over their own consciences which isn't a very reassuring thing to know about how the country is run.
The leading piece on the news last night was about MP's expenses claims, and how they are granted for things like second homes (so they can live in London during parliamentary session). The undertone of this was that there was something underhand going on - even I was mildly surprised by some of the things they can claim for, like £10,000 for a new kitchen for said second home (Ten grand! For a kitchen! By Crikey!). What struck me the most, however, was the hypocrisy of the news reports and of a lot of people regarding MPs pay and expenses. It's been established that 'public opinion' (whose, exactly?) won't stand for MPs getting pay rises, and so increased expenses allowances have been used to effectively pay them more without a public 'pay rise'. There's been a lot in the media lately about this, and many people seem to think this is outrageous. So do I, for different reasons.
The annual salary for a Westminster MP is about £60,000. This is, to be blunt, fuck all. How anyone can expect highly talented and qualified people who can reasonably expect to earn many times that in business or even the civil service to stand for election is beyond me. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys so it's no surprise that the legislative body of this country is so heavily populated with shaven apes rather than talent, and it's no surprise that the people in Westminster delve so deeply into their expenses when given the opportunity.
My solution? Scrap the current expenses scheme and raise MP salaries - doubling them for starters would be about fair. This might sound odd coming from an anti-politician sort like myself, but it really is the only way to increase the chance of having decent talent in Westminster. The Prime Minister only pulls in £187,000 which is about the same as the chef executive of a decent-sized hospital, so it's not really surprising that we've got someone in the role who would be better suited to that sort of job.
If you want talent, you have to pay for it.
If you want talentless corrupt oafs, then put in place mechanisms that encourage it.
Sadly, it seems the general public and the media would prefer the latter.
*"Michael Heseltine and Claire Short". I'm tempted to put 'porn' at the end of that phrase and google it, but I don't dare. I'm sure some of you lot will now, though.
