Friday, March 05, 2010

MPs should be paid less—proved!

The Appalling Strangeness is discussing MPs' salaries and comes to a conclusion that I can entirely agree with.
For £65,000 a year I really do expect our elected officials to do something other than bray like a rabid mob at PMQ's, and traipse through the correct lobby on the instructions of a whip.

£65k a year for what we've got; I honestly believe we could have much better for far less.

And, do you know what? I can prove this theory by means of a simple logical argument...

Because, you see, everyone—including our useless fucking politicos—has been banging on about how bankers have fucked up, right? The conventional wisdom is that these bankers have screwed their employers, and comprehensively fucked the economy, yes? That these bankers were, in fact, utterly fucking useless at their jobs.

Further, there have been howls of protest—not least from our idiot MPs—about the vast salaries and bonuses paid to these bankers. And the bankers do not deserve such vast renumeration because they have totally buggered the economy.

So...

Bankers were possibly the most massively paid people in the country and yet they were fucking crap, right? Therefore, not only do you not get the best by paying massive salaries, you actually get people who are utterly disastrous.

So, this argument that we should pay MPs lots of cash in order to command the best talent is demonstrably false. And, as such, if we want the very best legislators, the amount that we should pay these cunts is only slightly more than fuck all.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

5 comments:

TheUKLibertarian.com said...

They should work for free, then maybe I'd believe them when they call themselves "public servants"

Mitch said...

The fuckpigs cant have it both ways can they?

Lola said...

Isn't that rather akin to the Italian Doctor non attendance allowance? That is if you paid the doctor NOT to attend an medical ishooo the research showed that more people survived?

It's also rather like the Spike Milligan hand gun licence rule. This states that anyone that wants a handgun is clearly bonkers and should never get a licence. As with wanting to be Prime Minister. Anyone that really wants the job is by defintion utterly unsuitable. As evidence of the truth of this I give you ............ Gordon Brown.

Manu said...

I would actually say that overall the bankers were exceptionally good at the jobs they were paid obscene amounts of money to do - namely create vast profits for their employers (and, indirectly, the Treasury); who cares if the assets being traded are fake and/or worthless and the econony will be stuffed for a generation?

Difference with MPs of course is that they are demonstrably not even doing the 'day job' they were elected to do...

Anonymous said...

One relatively simple way to resolve the "problem" would be to look at the number of applicants for each position. At present, we can agree that there are several potential applicants for each available position. From this we may infer that salary and benefits are unlikely to be a significant factor in recruitment as each post is already significantly oversubscribed. Each political organisation has large numbers of potential applicants to review before presenting a "shortlist" to the electorate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that salaries and other benefits may be reduced before the market in potential applicants is significantly reduced as a result of the impairment in salaries etc.