Maybe salaries should be decided on a local basis. Candidates are chosen to represent parties in constituencies, if the party feels the quality of candidate is low then they need to offer more money - do they think quality is low? I don't get that impression; we have a range of people which is probably a good thing.
Set their salaries on average income, I would suggest the top and bottom 5%, are removed from the figures for calculating the average.
As it is their job to do the best for the country and its people, then their own pay would automatically be performance related.
Would be interesting to see what would happen if the idea a few months ago about regional pay reared up again. Should MP's wages be based upon the average salary of their constituency?
And also maybe upon the population they represent?
I'd suggest that would end up with the ones on the highest salaries being the independently wealthy, who need the money the least.
So it'd work well as a metaphor
I am surprised at the support for our MPs.
Perhaps the Teachers, Nurses and Police would also wish to set up their own review bodies (comprised of people who will owe them favours) to decide their future salaries.
I would hazzard a guess that the review body would then award far more than the 0-1% that the above public sector workers will receive for the forseeable future.
[i]Perhaps they may even decide that they are vastly underpaid for their services to general society.
Since when is £65K plus expences a poor wage for public sector employee. There are obviously some very well paid people on STW; more ammunition to suggest we all work in sales or computers, drive Audis and ride Orange 5s.
And as for the comments that we should be attracting people seeking the money rather than doing it for public good!
And as for the comments that we should be attracting people seeking the money rather than doing it for public good!
Seriously, what planet are you living on? Do you [i]really [/i] believe that you can attract the best candidates for a job without paying what amounts to the market rate? Has it not occured to you that perhaps one of the reasons that we have a situation where the parliamen is filled with as many independantly wealthy people is becasue of the compartively low wages that the the most able can command elsewhere? I wish the world wasn't like that but it is. In any case, just because someone does a job primarily for the money doesn't mean that they won't be good at it.
I think that the pay is currently fine, the problem is that parliment has become a closed club, it doesn't need more people who can demand higher wages elsewhere, it needs more people who are representative of the nations population and understand problems beyond "the city" and choosing between caviar and foi gras.
Lets get more people who are teachers, builders, factory workers and housewives in there instead of the stream of professional politicians who have rarely been in a life situation to suffer the consequences of political decisions.
Some very odd attitudes in here.
I would have said £65k a year was pretty dam good to basically be an actor, and sprout as much bull as possible.
Fine if they want to become members of a proffesional body, and train to be in their proffesion then that would maybe justify a higher wage.
Do people really think that Politicians are anything other than a puppet used to try and get public opinion on side? The decisions are made by economist/theorist in whitehall jobs, with the support of hard working people who work in the NHS/ local government etc.
A politician is just the front man, nothing more..
Seriously, what planet are you living on?
Earth
Again are you saying that everyone who works for less than the MPs wages is talentless and that being an MP would be beyond [ and is more highly skilled ] than being a doctor, paramedic, nurse, head teacher etc?Do you really believe that you can attract the best candidates for a job without paying what amounts to the market rate?
Has it not occured to you that perhaps one of the reasons that we have a situation where the parliamen is filled with as many independantly wealthy people is becasue of the compartively low wages that the the most able can command elsewhere?
I dont know why you think that only the independently wealthy can live of a mere £65k + expenses - what with it being in the top 5 % of earners. i dont know why you keep saying it is comparatively little etc. I do agree they are not the most able though
I wish the world wasn't like that but it is. In any case, just because someone does a job primarily for the money doesn't mean that they won't be good at it.
What you need to do is persuade us that this MEANS they WILL be good at the job as opposed to "naive" for having principles and wanting to make the world a better place.
Perhaps they would use their time to serve their own long term financial aims rather than the citizens by making the right connections and collecting a load of banked "favours".
I am really nt sure if anyone would be better at any job if the din not GAS versus someone who id GAS. I suspect people who care about their work do a bette rjob...what do you think?
Are you trolling or do you really believe that the reason normal folk dont become MPS ifs because they are put off by the meagre £65 k?
FWIW arguing that the "best" always get paid the most if a foolish.
Is wayne rooney a better choice as MP as he earns loads - I am sure if we offered him £ 16 miliion tax free he would consider it ...I mean you want the best yes and surely most of us could get by on that sort of income?
have you considered that he skill set to make loads of money is not necessarily the skillset to be a good politician?
I wish MP's were nominated from local areas by the constituents, rather than put themselves up for election for the constituents to pick out from a list. Don't know how this would work but would save us from a lot of the self serving dross that currently make it into power under the umbrella of party politics.
I don't have a problem with MP's being payed for doing a good job. They are often people who could earn big money elsewhere.
But...
Their pay should be performance related (not sure how this could be measured but...)
And...
All pay and expenses should be means tested. So if you are are a millionaire, or multiple director of companies etc you surley don't need the additional tax payer based contribution. To me that is fair as it means that a 'normal' person will be paid for the job if they choose to go down that route and the 'bullington boys' can do it for free if they wish.
The means tested/performance related aspect is what's happening elsewhere in the country so it is a fairer system.
On a par with the average wage for a secondary school headteacher isn't it?Also same ballpark as an army colonel, police chief superintendent etc.
Isn't this the point. Aren't these the kind of people we would like to become MPs. People who have reached the top of the tree in their chosen profession, but also have some experience of working with the people they want to govern etc.
So therefore being an MP needs to be a promotion, an increase in pay for these people.
gonefishin - MemberFrankly I've thought for a very long time that MPs are significantly underpaid for the work that they do and that that the expenses fiasco was a consequnce of deliberately suppressing their salaries.
Totally agree with that.
And I have to say I'm surprised how many people now appear to agree with those sentiments, I said much the same on here during expenses scandal and was pretty much universally dismissed and ridiculed for it.
For me it was just another example of how self regulation does not work and that if you let people, even good people. will take the piss and break the law for personal gain. Does not matter if it is an office worker with the petty cash or the company credit card or an MP
Why does everyone have to be a moderately successful middle manager to be a good MP?
Why do you think this skill set is essential to being a MP?
Why do they need to have a wage increase?
if they wont do it for this sort of wage then dont ...perhaps this means they lack the quality of public service and self sacrifice we require from our MP's and public sector workers in general.
Again are you saying that everyone who works for less than the MPs wages is talentless and that being an MP would be beyond [ and is more highly skilled ] than being a doctor, paramedic, nurse, head teacher etc?
No that's not what I'm saying. If that is what I meant to say, then that is what I would have typed. Having said that there are many doctors and head teachers that will earn far more than £65k pa and they will have far more job security than an MP does.
I dont know why you think that only the independently wealthy can live of a mere £65k + expenses
That's not what I said, but given the choice most people will choose a higher paid job over a lower paid one that is the point that I'm making. There are many profesions that have salaries well above that of a back bench MP and many of these people will have skills that could be useful and if you want to attract such people then the remuneration will have to go some way to reflect this fact.
What you need to do is persuade us that this MEANS they WILL be good at the job as opposed to "naive" for having principles and wanting to make the world a better place.
There is never any guarantee of this for any job.
Perhaps they would use their time to serve their own long term financial aims rather than the citizens by making the right connections and collecting a load of banked "favours".
Or perhaps they would be completely ineffectual. Just because you care doesn't mean you'll be any good.
have you considered that he skill set to make loads of money is not necessarily the skillset to be a good politician?
You're absolutely right, but then that's not what I said. What I meant was the skill set that will make a good politician will also allow that same person the make a lot of money.
Might be worth seeing what the equivalent jobs in the private sector are and seeing what they pay. A lot of people in finance jobs might get paid a lot more but they have specific skills and not really the right ones to be an MP. Middle to senior general managers perhaps? What are they paid? Not much more than an MP. Of course MPs get great benefits such as a very nice pension scheme and end of office payment and various expenses that others have to fund themselves - so £66k or whatever is only the start of it when compared to your average private sector manager.
And then there are some MPs who start young - they do very nicely.
Middle to senior general managers perhaps?
Not sure there is a comparable job but it strikes me that the job is piss simple in terms of skill set but very important
Why do you think it is hard to form a view, present it to the people and stick to it...are you all Lib dems or something 😉
Is like being a pub landlord? need everyone to like you to get their customs and your life is overly made up of "regulars" you pretend to like?
gonefishin we are going round in circles so I have chosen not to reply.
Also remember, that is just base salary for a new starter, there are around 120 "minister" positions that accrue higher salaries and benefits, as does being a senior bench warmer for the position.
From what I can see, there is no qualification related entry requirements or aptitude test:
short of entrepreneurial endeavours, I can't think of another industry where such lax parameters apply.
I think we need regular ATOS style audits to ensure value for money is being delivered and the system is not being exploited by scroungers 😉
It’s all very well saying the wage is equivalent to that of teachers / the police etc. but given that for most MP’s the job entails being away from their families and friends for half of the week for years on end with all the extra complexity that creates (human and financial) I don’t think a direct comparison makes sense.
I also wonder whether those that say MPs should just suck it up have ever had to put up with that kind of arrangement short term – let alone for 5 or 10 years. Of the latest cohort of new MPs, nearly a 1/3 that were married at the time of election are reportedly now divorced – the long hours (in constituencies and Westminster) are in the main not visible to most of the electorate with the result that we have a distorted view of what the job entails – most people who’ve never written to an MP or visited a local surgery or looked at the select committees have no idea that their MP is involved in any of those things and just think the banter we see at PMQs is what most MPs spend their time doing.
There clearly needs to be a balance on pay, but if we want capable people with broad experience to enter politics, manage the country effectively in an increasingly complex world AND work to resolve the problems their local electorate encounters then we need to accept this requires a level of commitment and ability that would most likely result in people that fit this profile earning a lot more than £65K a year. The new proposed salary seems pretty fair and I still wouldn't want to do the job for the increase in pay given the poor quality of life and constant cynicism from the public that most hard working MPs (on all sides) put up with.
Possibly a slight increase in pay, offset by moving the seat of government to Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham to save on London costs of second homes and staffing. Perhaps they should be allowed to claim some of the expenses cost to top up their salary if they choose to flat share.
They should also be required to do occasional voluntary work within their constituencies so they can witness the responsibilities many people take on in their work for a fraction of £65k.
MSP +1. Junkyard +1. Gonefishin - wtf? better people = better pay? Get out of town! from what I've seen, most people who earn the most money do so bymeans of a particular feeling of deserving, or that their efforts deserve to be rewarded more than others'. very often by taking from those 'less deserving'. rich lawyers? entrepreneurs, minting themselves through the labour of their workforces and patting themselves on the back for being so clever.
most of the best people I know work in low-paid jobs. they have abilities and, importantly, empathy that would more asset to running the countries than any business acumen. I find them in relatively low pay jobs precisely because they lack the self-serving, egotism that sends others looking for £££
The next intake of new MPs will probably include the PM, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor etc of 15years time.
These are the people who will have to stand up to the Russian Mafia, the CIA, The EU , China and Al Quaeda.
I'd rather have some good performers than a bunch of ex-posties, failed lecturers and trade unionists, if you don't mind. Pay 'em a good whack to get the bloody best.
if you don't mind
Well actually I do.
I dismiss and ridicule you, sir.
Can someone run me through the recruitment process please to clarify that those earning these elevated salaries are indeed of sufficient calibre?
Surely to ensure you truly have the best, it should be the one who has risen the furthest in life through personal qualities and achievements, rather than the one who has exploited their born privileges (Cough, Eton)
Some people have a strange idea concerning what elected parliamentary representation involves. It has nothing to do with establishing "who has risen the furthest in life through personal qualities". The electorate chooses those who's policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament. And if they decide to choose "a bunch of ex-posties, failed lecturers and trade unionists" then so be it.
Obviously it makes sense not to put off capable people by offering derisory salaries, but you can't use that as a basis to manipulate who is elected to parliament.
BigJohn - MemberThe next intake of new MPs will probably include the PM, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor etc of 15years time.
These are the people who will have to stand up to the Russian Mafia, the CIA, The EU , China and Al Quaeda.
so you think Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Bliar, Gordon Brown and Nice-guy Dave have aquitted themselves respectably against those foes?
elected members are not expected to have shootouts with The Mob in the streets of London. Did you know?
We have police, military and related intelligence branches who are supposed to be governed by our elected representatives. So yes, I want them to be decent folk who can be trusted.
offering derisory salaries
is a wage that puts you in the top 5 % derisory?
Well done for carefully selecting 3 words from my post to make a pointless point scoring point Junkyard.
When put in the context I put them in it's clear that I said no such thing :
[i]"Obviously it makes sense not to put off capable people by offering derisory salaries"[/i]
I never claimed you said anything - I asked a question as i dont know what your view is so I asked you whether you think the current wage is derisory. Its obviously a question I have asked
I am not sure how asking a question /seeking clarity is "point scoring".
It is obvious a derisory wage will put most people off applying for the job. I dont disagree
Do you consider the current MP's salary package [ in the top 5%]to be derisory ?
[b]The electorate chooses those who's [/b][i](sic)[/i][b] policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament[/b]. And if they decide to choose "a bunch of ex-posties, failed lecturers and trade unionists" then so be it.
Do you have any proof to back up that ridiculous claim?
Do you have any proof to back up that ridiculous claim?
No of course I haven't, it's a well known fact that people vote for the candidates and political parties who[b]'s[/b] policies they least agree with 🙄
The level of "debate" some people want to engage in is really quite pathetic.
MEGALOLS
"Whose" is [url= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whose ]the possessive form of who[/url].
No of course I haven't, [b]it's a well known fact that people vote for the candidates and political parties who's [/b][i](sic)[/i] [b]policies they least agree with[/b]
Taking a leaf out of JY's book, I'm just going to say "False dichotomy".
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_science_journals ]Here's a list of journals where research into voting behaviour can be found[/url]
I'd simply like to suggest that the issue might be a [i]little more complicated[/i] than you make out.
The level of "debate" some people want to engage in is really quite pathetic.
You might want to consider whether you are part of the problem or part of the solution.
Why not just offer some proof rather than criticising /getting upset when folk ask you a reasonable/legitimate question based on what you have said ?
Do I need to ask again if you consider the current MP's wage to be derisory?
Re Voting Ernie did you not vote Lib Dem at some point? - I vote for the party most likely to beat the Tories. Neither of us seem to be voting for party we most agree with for various complex reasons.
Do some people not vote UKIP as a protest vote or to warn the Tories - it has changed the parties stance on Europe for example
Some folk votes tory as it was time for a change - whatever that meant.
To be clear I think the reason you state is the most common reason but it is not the only reason
"Whose" is the possessive form of who.
If you check my previous post and look carefully you will note that I typed "[b]'s[/b]" in bold to show how much I care about your grammatical corrections.
.
I'd simply like to suggest that the issue might be a little more complicated than you make out.
I haven't mentioned anything about "complicated".
So you wanted me to reproduce the text of a "political science journal" ? [i]ffs[/i]
So you wanted me to reproduce the text of a "political science journal" ? ffs
🙂 Nope. I don't [i]want[/i] you to do anything, but if you're asking, it'd be nice if you didn't try and pass off over-simplifications as fact. Oh, and while we're at it, JY has a couple of good points he'd like you to address.
The person in front of me in the queue at the last general election asked a volunteer what party that man with the nice hair was from. I'm sure she had an excellent understanding of the various policies. And most lib dem voters didn't realise they were endorsing Tory policy...
it'd be nice if you didn't try and pass off over-simplifications as fact.
We have a parliamentary system which is based on the [u]electorate[/u] voting for the candidates and political parties who's policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament, that is "a fact".
[u]Individuals[/u] might vote in a certain way for all manner of reasons, including because a candidate has perhaps a nice pair of large knockers or an amusing mop of unkempt blond hair, but the [u]electorate[/u] as a whole does not.
And yes, on occasions some people will not always vote for their first preferred choice if they feel they stand little chance of winning, and instead go for their second choice. Some electoral procedures such as French general elections actually help to give people a second choice if their first choice is eliminated.
Whatever the system it is designed to allow the electorate to choose those who's policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament, even if they are given a second choice or some individuals decide to vote for the most handsome candidate.
That is the whole basis of our parliamentary system and there is nothing "ridiculous" about it.
ernie_lynch - MemberWhatever the system it is designed to allow the electorate to choose those who's policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament
I agree completely with this. I just don't think you can assume it actually works like that. If you were to interview people on the way into the polling centre, how many do you think would accurately identify their chosen' party's policies on a variety of subjects? (or for that matter the parties they dislike?)
At the very least I'd say there's probably an uninformed/misinformed/misled voter block that's big enough to change the results of your average general election. Insert a Lib Dem insult here, if you like. And I don't think anyone doubts the power of the media in this day and age.
Not going to even attempt to back that up with actual facts, though but I'd be fascinated if anyone has any- not sure where to start.
You might think the system is flawed Northwind in terms of the "uninformed/misinformed/misled" and the "power of the media", but the electorate chooses those who's policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament.
If it bothers you then insert the words "believe" and an extra "them" into the sentence so that it reads : the electorate chooses those who's policies they [i]believe[/i] most agree with [i]them[/i] to represent them in parliament.
And getting back to my point, that's how MPs get their job. Upping MPs salaries won't make people vote differently, although it obviously makes sense not to put off capable people by offering derisory salaries.
it obviously makes sense not to put off capable people by offering derisory salaries.
that why we offer a salary in the top 5 %
it s not like they get minimum wage and 37.5 hours pay only and no expenses.
ernie_lynch - Memberthe electorate chooses those who's policies they believe most agree with them to represent them in parliament.
I'll go with that.
If the system works, how is it that we had a hung parliament, then the parties chose between themselves how it panned out without any further input from the electorate?
This isn't a democracy. The Queen has veto over laws concerning her and since she's at least nominally in charge of the armed forces and the police and a lot of tax havens that doesn't leave a whole lot that's important for us to have the vote on.
If we want to change this situation through the ballot box, we can't; her Majesty can simply veto our democratic decision.
Then we should remember how many times this country's been successfully conquered. The Romans managed and we still have the top-down heirarchical societal structure they left us with. William the Conqueror took us over and we still live with decisions he made, like the monarch owns all the land (if you're a freeholder, you only own title to the freehold, not the freehold itself. That belongs to her Maj, you remember, the one we never elected and can't vote out of office). Then the Dutch bankers funded William of Orange to come over and get us all tied up in paying eternal debts to the banks, which has worked out very nicely for the banks but means much of our efforts don't go towards furthering our own interests. And we put up with all of this. Greece had it easy.
What exactly do MPs do for their money? I ask this as the commons seems to be empty most of the time, and when it is a bit more full most of them just sit there with a glaikit look on their face.