Well, I dunno really

BBC presenters earning more than the Prime Minister will be “named and shamed” within weeks if David Cameron wins the general election.

What is the obsession with what the Prime Minister earns? There\’s an element of falling into the Statist trap here.n What the PM earns and the relationship between that and the earnings of others is only important if we already swallow the concept that politics, politicians, the State, is of over riding importance.

If we, however, have the correct view of politics, that it\’s simply a method of selecting who will organise the scut work of society, then who earns more than the PM is of no more import than who earns more than the dustman.

Both absolutely essential jobs, yes, someone has to do them to keep the show on the road. But the idea that those more productive, more useful to society, should earn the same as a dustman never even crosses our mind. So why should it with the PM?

10 thoughts on “Well, I dunno really”

  1. If dustmen did indeed earn more than the PM, that would be cause for public outrage.

    That other suckers at the public teat earn more than this arbitrary benchmark (what the PM gets) could well also be a public outrage, as was shown when the local council highly paid staff were revealed recently.

    That this goes on being “interesting” surely shows that what the PM gets IS a valid benchmark, no ?

    Alan Douglas

  2. I think the point is that Cameron is under the impression there is no-one more worthy than him in the entire country, let alone public sector.

    He’s going to be spending his first 100 days reading out names of RBS and Lloyds HBOS staff, isn’t he?

  3. Any job that Cameron is capable of doing isn’t worth two beans. But then I’m not convinved he’s capable of being PM. Do we pay what the job should be worth or what the incumbent is worth?

  4. We should pay what the job is worth, subject to the incumbent doing it to a satisfactory standard (and if he doesn’t, we kick him out, given the opportunity). We don’t pay a brain surgeon more to stack shelves at Tesco than we pay a shelf-stacker to stack shelves at Tesco.

  5. The “Westminster Village” appears to lionise its leading members, making them out to be towering genuiuses. However, most of them have often not done anything of note in the “real world” and have generally been rather ordinary – with the exception of the astounding creative ability that many of them have displayed with respect to fleecing the taxpayer.

  6. Cpmparing with the Prime Minister is unfair, as a PM has a fairly unique opportunity to earn squillions after leaving office; so it seems eminently reasonable that we might want to pay some people more than the PM, who wouldn’t get that opportunity

  7. It used to be said (rightly or wrongly) that in the Soviet Union a tractor mechanic earned more than a doctor because the mechanic’s skills were more important to the community.

    Cameron’s proposals lead to a hugely centralised bureaucracy, opening up a lovely juicy question of which Commissar would be awarded the job of deciding which jobs have merit / social value / whatever. I imagine Mr Murphy’s CV is being brushed up even now…

  8. Why should we pay the PM. or any MPs for that matter? They’re in it for the power, not the money.

    I would pay them the basic unemployment benefit and let their political party pick up the slack. I think it would be salutary for the rank and file members of Labour (or Conservative, Lib Dem, etc.) to vote on remuneration for their MP.

  9. Mike Bloomberg accepts $1.00 a year in salary as mayor of New York.

    So I say, let the NY Times gin up a list of all New Yorkers who make more than $1.00 a year and publish it with an appropriate front-page headline.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *