And it flatly contradicts your first response - that there is no shortage of applicants for the job. As Sir Humphrey once said, you could fill the Commons tens of times over with prospective MPs.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
There are many more "capable people" who didn't go to private school, didn't go to Oxbridge, and aren't in professions, who would jump at the chance to earn £93k for a few years.
There is no "quality" requirement for being an MP. That is not down to pay - you get paid 3x the average male salary and a bucketload of perks, and the last PM took a huge pay cut to do the job. The only requirement is that you can win an election.
If you choose your MP to be a casino chip for their party leader, that's your decision. But don't then complain if you think the MPs are idiots/zealots/lazy/crap.
I didn't say quality candidates weren't important, just that there is no requirement that they be any good. And in any event, like everyone else, I don't "choose" the candidates to be MPs - parties do, and most seats are safe.
So your argument should be with party candidate selection processes - which are often opaque and gerrymandered - rather than trying to address that through pay.
I absolutely do have arguments with party candidate selection process. I wrote about this whole area a few years ago. I disagree with you less than you seem to think!
Comments
There is no shortage of applicants. The quality of those applicants is not in the main high.
There's no shortage of applicants to be Premier League footballers either.
https://medium.com/@alastair-meeks/performance-anxiety-1b3815423f36