Can some one please help me understand why I heard the same old worn out argument about pay and quality, this time applied to MP's? Driving home last night from my 3 hour stint volunteering, ie working without okay, I heard a trailer on the radio for an item about MP's pay. Apparently most of them believe they ought to have a 32% pay increase and one argument in favour was, "If we want the best people to serve in public office then we need to pay them well." Apparently £65,000 is not enough to keep a family in the manner they would like to be kept.
Did we not hear the same thing about industry and banks and everywhere else? Strange how this same logic doesn't apply to nurses and bus drivers and factory workers. How come the best CEO deserves to be paid extremely well, but the best delivery driver or cleaner has to get by on tax credits? And if they were the best, how come the banks collapsed and the economy crashed?
This logic about pay has lead us into this financial crisis. Greed, not ability is the driving force. No CEO should be earning more than 100 times that of the lowest paid worker in their organisation, but in some instances I suspect 100 times is a conservative estimate, a very conservative estimate.
Perhaps £80,000+ is a more realistic salary for an MP, but don't keep telling me it's to get the best. That argument doesn't work anymore, and it's an insult to the best who are forced to settle for a lot less.