Cameron autobiography - "For the record"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Imagine if we had 60 MPs and paid them £500k each and paid the PM £2m or something, we might actually get some talented MPs in Politics

Why?

The idea that throwing farcical amounts of money at someone with power leads to better results is nothing more than an article of faith. If we had 60 MPs they'd be even less able to represent the population than the ~600 we have now. 1 person representing ~1 million people is even less democratic than we have now. It would also make it even easier for 1 person to seize ruling power because they'd only have to control 31 people. Bribery would become easier for the same reason.

I'm reminded of the attempt in high medieval England to reduce corruption amongst high officials by requiring them to be rich so they wouldn't be tempted by more money. That sounds more sensible, but of course it utterly failed because very few people who seek money and power and obtain it are satisfied with however much they have of either.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Why?

The idea that throwing farcical amounts of money at someone with power leads to better results is nothing more than an article of faith. If we had 60 MPs they'd be even less able to represent the population than the ~600 we have now. 1 person representing ~1 million people is even less democratic than we have now. It would also make it even easier for 1 person to seize ruling power because they'd only have to control 31 people. Bribery would become easier for the same reason.

I'm reminded of the attempt in high medieval England to reduce corruption amongst high officials by requiring them to be rich so they wouldn't be tempted by more money. That sounds more sensible, but of course it utterly failed because very few people who seek money and power and obtain it are satisfied with however much they have of either.
Honestly, I think it takes a certain kind of person to want to rule over others.

I don't think the majority of us seek out that power as it doesn't interest us.

The idea that paying a lot more money to people who take these positions - that this will attract a better quality of candidate or guarantees they will do a better job - that is for the birds, as they say.

I also don't think I'd be better at it than those who do seek out that power. That said, I don't think those who seek to rule should be trusted to rule, without strict checks and balances, controls and accountability (which we could probably use more of tbh). The nature of the people who want to rule imho means that they shouldn't be trusted by default.

Whilst I simultaneously recognise the need for someone/something to rule or there would be anarchy.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
10,574
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.

The company can't afford to give employees a decent pay rise, but that doesn't really matter because people aren't really motivated by their salary, they just want to be able to do a good job and be recognised for this. Which all sounds great, until you find out the CEO is receiving £5 million per year because (apparently) we need to pay to get the best leaders. Then said CEO gets the push (with a handsome settlement) for not delivering...
 
Capodecina
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I'll be buying it. What's your problem?
Your problem appears to be a willingness to buy his DIY version of the Big Issue from the Old Etonian Call-me-Dave; in my case I would like the ******* to hand over his ill-gotten gains to the people whose livelihood and lives he is responsible for having ruined.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,390
The company can't afford to give employees a decent pay rise, but that doesn't really matter because people aren't really motivated by their salary, they just want to be able to do a good job and be recognised for this. Which all sounds great, until you find out the CEO is receiving £5 million per year because (apparently) we need to pay to get the best leaders. Then said CEO gets the push (with a handsome settlement) for not delivering...

Yea that used to annoy me when I was working for a company in Cambridge. We got **** wages for the amount of work we did, but useless CEOs on millions a year (who appeared to do nothing) came and went. They only need to sit in a job like that for a few years and they are made for life, so why bother putting effort in. If they get the boot they don't care :/
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
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!

Not to justify vast wages but the scrutiny that most Council Leaders are under is obscene. It's not an easy job at all, add to that the leader of my local council when I was an officer there was on call 24/7 365, that was literally in his contract. And you better believe that clause came in to play. A LOT.

Having said that he was a very good leader. That's the other thing, you never hear about the good ones.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,784
Location
Wales
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.


I cant really help but think you dont actually have much experience of management/pay and are going more by TV etc?

For a lot of management transition from say shop floor to lower management, the bump in pay isnt much compared to the increase in pressure/responsibility.


It's sort of 3 tiers of management up where pay gets to much higher levels (ie where one of his team couldn't out earn him through some overtime/shift rates) but there there is fairly huge responsibility and they need the higher salary to convince people to keep moving up the ladder.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I cant really help but think you dont actually have much experience of management/pay and are going more by TV etc?

For a lot of management transition from say shop floor to lower management, the bump in pay isnt much compared to the increase in pressure/responsibility.

It's sort of 3 tiers of management up where pay gets to much higher levels (ie where one of his team couldn't out earn him through some overtime/shift rates) but there there is fairly huge responsibility and they need the higher salary to convince people to keep moving up the ladder.
Why on Earth would my experience come from TV, rather than the places I've worked?

What an odd thing to say.

Perhaps you'd consider the possibility that my experience differs from yours as we worked in different places...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom