Inequality

[Rico1304]

That is exactly what happens now.

 

George Osborne didn't get where he is because he is a naturally gifted MP, economist, after-dinner speaker, fund manager and journalist. He got where he is because he has had all the necessary connections throughout his life, starting at school. If, instead of going to St Paul's, he'd gone to St Scumbag's Comp, do really think his talents would have carried him through to where he is now?

That's why we have to start paying MPs more so that talented people don't have to take a pay cut. If you're independently wealthy it's not an issue.

[Section_31]

I think the biggest difference between classes is expectations. My Mrs teaches in a deprived area and a big part of her job is trying to make the kids understand they can achieve things if they put their minds to it.

 

Most don't expect to have a job (they're primary age) and she took them to a uni once and a couple were really in awe of it and said they wanted to go. She has to try and make lessons relevant to them so they can understand how school can help them (one wants to be an electrician and didn't realise you needed to understand a bit of maths to be one)

 

Thing is, the parents are the same. Most have never achieved and don't really take much interest in their kids doing so, some of them hope something good will happen to them but don't have a clue how to try and help the process along.

 

My Mrs used to teach in a private school (not mega expensive but fees all the same) and the parents were constantly asking for more homework and advice on how to steer their kids.

 

The kids all has big dreams, doctor, lawyer etc.

 

Middle class kids expect success, working class kids are surprised by it if it ever comes.

[Section_31]

I think the biggest difference between classes is expectations. My Mrs teaches in a deprived area and a big part of her job is trying to make the kids understand they can achieve things if they put their minds to it.

 

Most don't expect to have a job (they're primary age) and she took them to a uni once and a couple were really in awe of it and said they wanted to go. She has to try and make lessons relevant to them so they can understand how school can help them (one wants to be an electrician and didn't realise you needed to understand a bit of maths to be one)

 

Thing is, the parents are the same. Most have never achieved and don't really take much interest in their kids doing so, some of them hope something good will happen to them but don't have a clue how to try and help the process along.

 

My Mrs used to teach in a private school (not mega expensive but fees all the same) and the parents were constantly asking for more homework and advice on how to steer their kids.

 

The kids all has big dreams, doctor, lawyer etc.

 

Middle class kids expect success, working class kids are surprised by it if it ever comes.

[VladimirIlyich]

So good you said it twice!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

That's why we have to start paying MPs more so that talented people don't have to take a pay cut. If you're independently wealthy it's not an issue.

So the poor lambs can't live on 2.7 times the national median income (plus expenses, plus subsidised food, booze, etc.)?

 

People who refuse to do public service because £74k isn't enough for them are, by definition, the last people you want doing the job.

[setreal]

A policy that would decimate the Guardian.

 

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

 

George Monbiot, Stowe School

Polly Toynbee, Badminton School

Andrew Rawnsley, Rugby School

Jonathan Freedland, University College School

Zoe Williams, Godolphin and Latymer Girls School

Tanya Gold, Kingston Grammar School (Independent)

Marina Hyde, Downe House for Girls

Bidisha Bandyopadhyay, Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls

Peter Bradshaw, Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys’ School

David Mitchell, Abingdon School

Timothy Garton-Ash, Sherborne School

John Hooper, St Benedict’s School

Sam Leith, Eton College

Peter Preston, Loughborough Grammar School (Independent)

Simon Jenkins, Mill Hill School

Richard Norton-Taylor, Kings School, Canterbury

Clare Armitstead, Bedales

Ben Goldacre, Magdalen College School

Martin Wainwright, Shrewsbury School

Victoria Coren, various independent schools

Hadley Freeman, “boarding school in Cambridge”

Matthew d’Ancona, St Dunstan’s College

Former Editor Alan Rusbridger and occasional contributor, Cranleigh School

 

???

[AngryOfTuebrook]

So good you said it twice!

And I repped it twice.

 

Here's an article (cited by Ellie Mae O'Hagan) in which an alumnus of Scotland's poshest school describes what it was like and - more importantly - what it was all for.

http://bright-green.org/2013/06/25/my-public-school-days-the-building-of-upper-class-solidarity/

 

The classes were, of course, good. They were small (10-20 pupils), and most of the teachers were effective. Though some were clearly chosen more for their ability to coach rugby or cricket, and all slotted in to the absurdly posh setting, a few were truly excellent. I found most of them maddening in that they aimed to do no more than spoon feed us with the answers we needed to give in order to get the exam grades to be allowed into Britain’s more famous universities, but the odd one strained at that leash. And that job, at least, they certainly did.

 

But it is not because you want your child to get top grades that you send them to live for five years at a British public school. There are much easier and cheaper ways to achieve that.

 

There is a bizarre belief held by many that success in Britain correlates to intelligence and hard work. This is a very middle class concept. What the upper class understands is that success stems from two things: confidence – or, at least, the appearance of confidence, and community. And they are the purpose of public school.

 

So, all those hours of sport, the diet, the uncomfortable beds – they are all part of a process. They ensure that no one is fat, and that everyone reaches the maximum of their genetically permitted height – that everyone appears healthy, fit.

 

But more importantly, they are all about team building. These activities exist to build generation after generation who will work together to run a now vanished empire. Whilst the ruling elite might preach rugged individualism, we are brought up to sing together as a whole community every morning, to stand together on the rugby pitch every afternoon, and, after leaving, to go away together to govern India. Each school even has its own, surreal words: ‘docket’, ‘prep’, ‘Coll’, ‘beak’. The more prominent English schools even have their own sports – the Eton Wall Game, Winchester Fives and, well, Rugby Football.

 

In short, the aim is simple: to build class solidarity. Whilst there are many reasons that essentially the same families have ruled Britain for a millennium, this process of team building, of bonding is surely one of them.

 

And who were we taught to stand against? Anyone who has met me knows that, despite growing up in Scotland, I have what some call an English accent. I suppose I’d argue it’s better described as a ‘posh’ accent. If you didn’t speak like this at my school, you’d be bullied.

 

The specific term used was ‘scoit’ – laden with the implications of ‘chav’, but with the bizarre added hangover of the post-1745 crackdown on Scottish culture. Whilst the teachers tried to stop this astonishingly offensive tradition, it lasted throughout my time there – and the school made headlines a few years later when some of its pupils posted online a video in which they claimed to be ‘chav hunting’. So perhaps the oppression has shifted from anti-Scots in particular to just anti-working class. Of course, this tendency isn’t actively encouraged. But the culture of the school certainly perpetuates it.

 

The middle classes are taught to believe that they will succeed through individual hard work and gumption. The upper class know that this is nonsense – or, at least, our traditions are built on the idea that it is.

 

And so they teach their children to stick together, to exude confidence whether or not they have a clue what they are doing, to appear physically fit: to form old boys’ networks and to look out for one another. And if you don’t believe this, you just need to visit a British public school, and watch the values being drilled into the children.

[Rico1304]

So the poor lambs can't live on 2.7 times the national median income (plus expenses, plus subsidised food, booze, etc.)?

 

People who refuse to do public service because £74k isn't enough for them are, by definition, the last people you want doing the job.

Where did I say that? You're making stuff up again.

 

If you want the brightest people running the country you need to pay more. If you want independently wealthy but averagely intelligent people who get by on nepotism and old boys networks keep the current system.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You need to pay MPs well.

 

£74k plus expenses is plenty.

 

I don't thinlk Parliament is currently missing out on any talent due to low wages.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

???

It's a list that illustrates the point that O'Hagan was making.

[Rico1304]

You need to pay MPs well.

 

£74k plus expenses is plenty.

 

I don't thinlk Parliament is currently missing out on any talent due to low wages.

If you're earning £300k elsewhere why would you risk it all to become an MP? Even top civil servants earn more than MPs. Widen the pool and get better quality.

[setreal]

It's a list that illustrates the point that O'Hagan was making.

 

Hmm. I guess we'll have to wait until Joe Rogan has had his say on the matter.

[Lee909]

Because its not just the 74 grand is it. Theres the expenses,the 2nd house allowances,the 2nd jobs/directorships they all get,the networking for jobs after they are no longer a MP.

[Numero Veinticinco]

If you're earning £300k elsewhere why would you risk it all to become an MP? Even top civil servants earn more than MPs. Widen the pool and get better quality.

Agreed.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

If you're earning £300k elsewhere why would you risk it all to become an MP? Even top civil servants earn more than MPs. Widen the pool and get better quality.

You're equating high pay with quality. That's not always a strong correlation, even in the fields in which the highly-paid people are currently working. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that,say, a partner in an accountancy firm would make a good MP.

 

There are many problems with Parliamentary democracy in this country. Under-representation of rich people isn't one of them.

[Rico1304]

You're equating high pay with quality. That's not always a strong correlation, even in the fields in which the highly-paid people are currently working. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that,say, a partner in an accountancy firm would make a good MP.

 

There are many problems with Parliamentary democracy in this country. Under-representation of rich people isn't one of them.

The selection process and election will weed out the dross.

 

I'd rather have someone who's had a career than a career politician any day.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

I'd rather have someone who's had a career than a career politician any day.

Agreed (generally) but I don't think raising MPs' pay is the way to achieve that.

[Rico1304]

Agreed (generally) but I don't think raising MPs' pay is the way to achieve that.

It broadens the pot of talent. That's all.

[Jockey]

You're equating high pay with quality. That's not always a strong correlation, even in the fields in which the highly-paid people are currently working. It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that,say, a partner in an accountancy firm would make a good MP.

 

There are many problems with Parliamentary democracy in this country. Under-representation of rich people isn't one of them.

 

Exactly - already you have discounted Academics, teachers, social workers, etc. 

 

They are paid enough - we aren't trying to attract people from business, as they are not the 'best'. 

[mattyq]

Where did I say that? You're making stuff up again.

 

If you want the brightest people running the country you need to pay more. If you want independently wealthy but averagely intelligent people who get by on nepotism and old boys networks keep the current system.

You're making a fairly common error when you assume there is always a link between being one of the brightest and best and earning loads of money.

Granted, the link is often there but you obviously don't know much about the Academic or Charity sectors

[Rico1304]

You're making a fairly common error when you assume there is always a link between being one of the brightest and best and earning loads of money.

Granted, the link is often there but you obviously don't know much about the Academic or Charity sectors

im not making any error. Increasing the pay would make the job more attractive to people earning more money. It wouldn't preclude anyone, just make the pot bigger. Some of the people earning more money are wholly unsuitable to be MPs, as are some people earning minimum wage. The selection process by the parties should see to that.

 

What I don't think you are seeing is that this policy would more likely give Labour and other parties better quality MPs.

[Jockey]

im not making any error. Increasing the pay would make the job more attractive to people earning more money. It wouldn't preclude anyone, just make the pot bigger. Some of the people earning more money are wholly unsuitable to be MPs, as are some people earning minimum wage. The selection process by the parties should see to that.

 

What I don't think you are seeing is that this policy would more likely give Labour and other parties better quality MPs.

 

I think it is a fair desire - that the person to best represent the interests of the electorate isn't motivated by the money on offer! 

[mattyq]

im not making any error. Increasing the pay would make the job more attractive to people earning more money. It wouldn't preclude anyone, just make the pot bigger. Some of the people earning more money are wholly unsuitable to be MPs, as are some people earning minimum wage. The selection process by the parties should see to that.

 

What I don't think you are seeing is that this policy would more likely give Labour and other parties better quality MPs.

 

You're doing it again

Why would increasing MPs pay encourage better people to become MPs? Is there any evidence for this or is it simply your opinion?

I don't want somebody as my MP who thinks £74k + expenses + pension isn't enough

I want my MP to believe in public service and making the lives of their constituents better not the size of their pay & benefits package

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It broadens the pot of talent. That's all.

Not really.  An MP's salary of £74k puts them comfortably in the richest 10%.  You'd have to increase it significantly to go chasing that "pot of talent" who currently have incomes, say, up to the 97th centile - and you'd have to increase it stratospherically to chase those who are currently on even higher incomes.  And to what end?  What evidence is there that these people would make good MPs?

 

If you want to draw from a bigger pot of talent, it would be much better to address some of the barriers keeping the vast majority of people from even thinking that serving as an MP is something that they can aspire to.  Laura Pidcock's maiden speech (and Caroline Lucas's book Honourable Friends?) described how deliberately intimidating Parliament's rituals and traditions are.  Taken together with the points made by Secsh and by the Scottish public schoolboy I linked to, it's clear that some people are groomed to sail through those rituals and fit right in, while others (the vast majority) are groomed to think that they don't belong there.  The result is a House packed full of braying inbreds, a huge proportion of whom went to the same few schools and colleges; a Parliament which millions of people feel, quite justifiably, doesn't represent them, belong to them or work for them.

 

It needs reform to become more representative.  Trying to attract even more millionaires won't achieve that.

[Rico1304]

Not really. An MP's salary of £74k puts them comfortably in the richest 10%. You'd have to increase it significantly to go chasing that "pot of talent" who currently have incomes, say, up to the 97th centile - and you'd have to increase it stratospherically to chase those who are currently on even higher incomes. And to what end? What evidence is there that these people would make good MPs?

 

If you want to draw from a bigger pot of talent, it would be much better to address some of the barriers keeping the vast majority of people from even thinking that serving as an MP is something that they can aspire to. Laura Pidcock's maiden speech (and Caroline Lucas's book Honourable Friends?) described how deliberately intimidating Parliament's rituals and traditions are. Taken together with the points made by Secsh and by the Scottish public schoolboy I linked to, it's clear that some people are groomed to sail through those rituals and fit right in, while others (the vast majority) are groomed to think that they don't belong there. The result is a House packed full of braying inbreds, a huge proportion of whom went to the same few schools and colleges; a Parliament which millions of people feel, quite justifiably, doesn't represent them, belong to them or work for them.

 

It needs reform to become more representative. Trying to attract even more millionaires won't achieve that.

Does it? Half the dickheads in this country voted for Brexit.

 

I'm more interested in a persons quality than some idealistic urge to serve. I simply don't get why offering more money wouldn't make it attractive to quality people who currently see it as too big of a risk.