- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Cameron autobiography - "For the record"
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,213
- Location
- Europe
He's an ex-PM, this is where their real millions comes from. Memoirs, after dinner speeches, the odd hour or two of consulting.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
They deserve to make money if they can. The salary they get for having the most important job in the country is ridiculous.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,700
- Location
- ST4
If the OP has such disdain for this book then one has to wonder as to why is he freely advertising it?
It's funny tho.
People often get paid big money for having important jobs, which they then proceed to screw up royally.
Council leaders are often earning 300k plus, even getting golden handshakes after they've done such a poor job that the council has been willing to pay them another 300k just to leave.
At which point they almost immediately get another highly-paid job at another council, rinse and repeat.
I sometimes wonder if just having responsibility alone justifies enormous pay cheques, esp when they can (and do) get it so very, very wrong.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
The thing about MP’s, ministers, PM’s etc, is that people always go on about them only “doing it for the money”, when the fact is, with their education and connections, they could earn tenfold in the private sector, but they choose this as their career for their own reasons. They certainly don’t choose it to get rich. Most of them are well of anyway.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
A council leader on 300k a year is earning 125k a year more than the PM.
Compare that to the useless fat cats in the energy industry too!
It mainly comes across to me that they do it for power, what happens when a Ritchie man has too much money, it looses currency so they move on to the next thing and the problem that leaves us with is we’re not rich so we feel the affects of their push for power.
Generally, the UK is terrible at considering the the cost of things but not the value. Hence why there's constant faux outrage whipped up about salaries in the public sector, and why the average moronic Brit blithley thinks that they could do a better job for half the money.
For context, the editor of the Daily Mail earns £1.5m a year plus 50% on top with long term incentive bonuses.
For context, the editor of the Daily Mail earns £1.5m a year plus 50% on top with long term incentive bonuses.
But they earn that money anyway at the same time as being politicians by also sitting on boards of corporations. It's a massive conflict of interest, which other civil servants are forbidden to do.
Also it's a position of power and some people get off on that alone.
They aren't servants! (scoffs)
They are the political elites - your masters.
At least that's how they see themselves, with few exceptions.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
That’s actually a very good argument. Why would the truly brilliant among us, slum it on £175k a year when they can easily pick up a few million in some City of London financial giant?
What's the value of an appointment that is largely considered to be a failure, and a tenure that is largely considered to be detrimental?
To the point where a massive golden handshake was offered to remove said person? Who then immediately went on to lead another council?
I'm not just looking at salary, although your comment was not directed at me.
You have talked about jealousy and ignorance.
But what of the other side of the coin: the number of top execs who are (rightly or wrongly) earning a lot of money, whilst doing an awful job?
The public sector in my experience can be guilty of an eternal revolving door where execs come in, get paid well, do a crap job, and leave again.
Massive salaries guarantee getting great minds? Really? You believe that?
I guess if you do you're probably in management yourself.
Most manager imho believe that you can pay what you like for the workers, because it almost doesn't matter who you employ to actually do the work, but the management must be on mega bucks because the management must be "the best and brightest".
But we'll scrimp and save on non-management salaries because really, who wants to pay them well? Just drag in any old hobo from the street to do the actual work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 6,032
- Location
- Location, Location!
I'll be buying it. What's your problem?
Perhaps you could narrow down your questions to something specific.
On the last one I can agree. Not about the revolving door - a measure of turnover is healthy, and not all appointments are failures due to a certain position, that doesn't mean that they cannot be successful elsewhere. Rather, that the revolving door is a door to a closed shop - there's rarely any new challenging thinking coming in from the private sector and being given the opportunity to succeed.
- Status