Forum menu
Decimation would be too good for them. (The proper Roman application of the word).
And +1 for Junkyards last post.
in any job you are responsible for not making a mess, if you do you then have to try and sort it out, often on/at your own time/expense.
or you can go into politics....
binners +1, well the bit about 'salary' being of limited relevance when compared to "disposable income".
I would add that the harder-to-price-up opportunities and doors that open to MP's present and 'retired. I am thinking second jobs, non-exec directorships/board positions and the marvellous jobs you have vastly better access to when you leave politics.
As a local example, David Jamieson (lab, Plymouth Devonport, oh and I was in a band with his son once) was a headteacher before his political career, and left politics to a very senior (and far better paid than MP or headteacher) position in GNER. What a fantastic career development oportunity his junior transport 'ministership' turned out to be: how else do you get from teaching to trains?
Paying MP's anything at all was a significant step towards democracy in the late 1800's as it allowed 'normal' people as well as those of independent means to afford to stand as MP's, but I think the situation has developed over the last 150 years and there is now a valid argument that "suffering" the salary of an MP is a thoroughly excellent career move.
Oh and the 'public sector pensions' that MP's enjoy have such fabulous terms and of course were [i]completely unchanged[/i] in the pensions reforms applied to teachers, civil servants and health workers last year. When they have dealt with the armed forces and police officers, MP's may well have the only surviving example of these fabled "gold plated pensions" left.
Don't care so much about MPs. If you really want to get wound up, have a look at what your local councillors get. They've awarded themselves pensions and numerous other perks yet are so incompetent at their jobs they're bringing in consultants at a cost of nearly £1000/day.
The same people are strangling the world in red tape; putting small businesses out of action by hiking up parking charges, and employing numerous time-wasting positions (ethical and diversity coordinator etc).
Paper today discusses one particularly backwards council that intends to pave over some beautiful cobbles (setts, technically) in an old town marketplace because they're difficult to access in a wheelchair. A path through the square was suggested but rejected. This is why libraries and sports facilities are being shut down. Funding has been cut to councils, sure - but only because they wasted so much of what they got.
The same attitude led to the miners path on Snowdon being destroyed, and in general a loathing for local authorities, who've taken the ability to squander money to a whole new level.
Apparently, they're not getting enough money from central government yet will not coordinate with each other to share facilities or services, and are sitting on some £8,000,000,000 in offshore accounts. I remember walking past a skip in Leeds filled with brand new office chairs, ordered because they needed to bring the yearly budget up to target. This mindless, backwards, moronic attitude that pervades all levels of government, but in particular local authorities, is the problem. Frankly, if the MPs get another £20k but lose expenses and a subsidised bar, I'd be happy.
Funding has been cut to [b]non-tory voting [/b]councils, sure - but only because they wasted so much of what they got.
FTFY
There may be a popint in paying ministers handsomely; they ought to be highly capable individuals. The braying lobby-fodder should be paid less - frankly I don't see why they have to be elected at all; if we must, the current constituency boundaries and ludicrous first past system can stand, but just add up the points and let each party take notional votes in parliament accordingly.
Maybe employ a proper administrator (who gives a shit about the locality) to do the constituency stuff and to pass to parliament any significant concerns, with a proper paper-trail and follow-up process.
I have no idea what the commons would become after this but I can't see it being worse
Alternatively keep the system, allow this proposed amount as a maximum allowed but on performance related pay (based on peer-review (within each party) and some composite of votes attended and hours spent in committee - LESS any time spent at other jobs).
Oh, and then sack the same % of seats from each party as there are % unemployed in the country - review every 12 months.
sugdenr - Member
You lot are really missing not having the news of the world to read aren't you.
The current lot had their fingers in that pie too didn't they...
Okay. Let's take it to the other extreme and say being an MP paid nothing at all - other than out of pocket expenses, like much charity work.
Not sure why you took it to that extreme.
Are they worth it? Hell no.
If I had my way they'd be paid by the results of a referendum as voted for by their constituents.
As for my MP, I'd happily vote in favour of paying him handsomely, provided that the cost of my rail season ticket is reduced first.
Not sure why you took it to that extreme.
Just rhetorically seeing where it leads. It's the natural extension of the [i]"they should do it for the love of public service not money"[/i] argument.
Binners - evidence? Can't say that it's something I noticed though I did hear some rural Tory councils whinging about their funds being cut unfairly.
And don't get me started on that fat prick Eric Pickles.
[img] 
[/img]
I haven't got a map of labour and Tory seats, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there might be a similarity
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jan/11/council-cuts-north-loses-out-to-the-south-newcastle ]As not reported in the Daily Mail[/url]
I am not generally a great fan of politicians but feel that much of the MP-bashing is actually pretty unfair, I think that it is easy to mistake a dissatisfaction with the narrow backgrounds of many of the senior members of most parties with the reality of most constituency MPs. On the whole, the latter do a pretty good job and manage some difficult balance acts between family lives, conflicting demands from their constituents and balancing personal conviction with party whips.
On the pay issue, there seems to be no shortage of candidates willing to represent us, so that suggests that current wages are probably close to sensible levels. Of course, adjusting the mindset that expenses were a system for topping up base salaries still needs some work.
But what about senior political roles? Dealing with important matters of state is a completely different issue to dealing with constituency matters and requires different skills completely. Given that there is a pretty general dissatisfaction with the current crop and that we have tried the experiment of elevating the unsuitable (real life? *) to the role of deputy PM with predictable results, it implies that there is a genuine shortage of able people in the senior roles. This suggests that there may well be a case for higher salaries for those in senior roles in order to attract those with wider sets of experience, the gravitas to execute international roles and the ability to execute complex strategies and choices.
* The idea of real life experience is an interesting one. What defines "real"? What is real to one could be unreal, even surreal to others. Even at the constituency level, does the average "real" person exist or is what we are "really" saying is, " I wish they were more like me"? In that case, and by definition, we would never be happy.
Two of his colleagues were qualified GPs and had to take considerable pay cuts to become MPs
MP's mentality is laid bare with such examples and comments that an MP could make more in the private sector.
Becoming a member of parliament is about serving the people. You chose to go into politics to serve your country. When it becomes about money and improving your pay then you've stopped focusing on the job you chose to do.
Its hardly poverty. They didn't have to go into it- why did they?
It's the natural extension of the "they should do it for the love of public service not money" argument.
Its not logical to suggest that because i think they get enough money as is [perhaps even too much] that this means they should get none.
that worse than giving them 100 k + "to attract talent" as we would get only the privately wealthy able to stand rather than just the greedy. 😉
Cheers binners - pretty damning!
Shame we're only half-way through, though can't imagine that life under Ed's going to be much better.
Just rhetorically seeing where it leads
Fair enough. Not really seeing anyone suggest they should do it for free though. More that the primary reason for doing shouldn't be money.
[img] 
[/img]
oh, the irony.
Have just had an email from my beloved leaders telling me about savings of £79m over the next 4 years and 1100 jobs being deleted.
We are, truly, in this together.
Anyone have a linky for public sector expenditure broken down by region and per person?
EDIT: some old guff
If we live in a representative democracy shouldn't politicians be representative of the electorate.
If the average salary is 26k ish and the median 23ish.. how can someone on 68k actual understand the concerns of the electorate?
How can someone with 2-3+ houses understand the concerns of someone living in a rented flat awaiting eviction?
You can say that they can use empathy etc, but my experience of many business men is that they are borderline psycopaths with no empathy and the reason they rise to the top little to do with ability and everything to do with a willingness to stab others in the back.
Show me a salesman and I'll show you a liar, bit like a politician....
though can't imagine that life under Ed's going to be much better
And herein lies the tragedy. It's no lie that the current lot are a bunch of vicious, self-serving ego-maniacs with few, if any, redeeming features. So, where are the opposition? Nowhere. Bunch of faceless, talentless arseholes who are, again mainly career politicians.
But what about senior political roles? Dealing with important matters of state is a completely different issue to dealing with constituency matters and requires different skills completely. Given that there is a pretty general dissatisfaction with the current crop and that we have tried the experiment of elevating the unsuitable (real life? *) to the role of deputy PM with predictable results, it implies that there is a genuine shortage of able people in the senior roles. This suggests that there may well be a case for higher salaries for those in senior roles in order to attract those with wider sets of experience, the gravitas to execute international roles and the ability to execute complex strategies and choices.
then maybe we should abolish parliament and impliment some form of oligarchy, it is clear that we can't trust mp's but rather should interview candidates to run the country instead? maybe the obsession in the UK with centralising power is actually one of the major faults. get power out of westminster to a regional level and let each region make decisions about itself. It works in most countries so why not in the UK?
I can't remember a time when democracy looked so threadbare in this country.
this lot are such a nasty, self-serving and lets be honest... plain old incompetent bunch of liars, that any opposition leader should be ripping lumps off them every week at PMQ's. And trouncing them in the polls. But, alas, instead we have the simpering, pathetic little Wallace-a-like Ed Milliband.
Its reached the point where you have to ask: what is the point of the labour party?
At least you know what the Tories are for - furthering the interests of their rich friends. At the expense of the rest of us
Binners - genuine question here - what does your map on the previous page tell us? It shows cuts - which on its own may be interesting, but hardly enough. As the IFS concluded:
"Overall cuts in local government spending (excluding education) are largest in both absolute and proportionate terms in the high-spending regions of London (equivalent to £221 per person or 11.2%), the North East (£169 per person or 12.6%) and the North West (£156 per person or 12.0%). They are by far the smallest in the low-spending region of the South East (£47 per person or 4.6%). In general, the cuts in spending are larger in both absolute and proportional terms in those regions of the country with initially higher spending, and smaller in those with initially lower spending, reflecting a similar pattern found at the local authority level."
A lot more is required before we can conclude whether this is fair/unfair, right or wrong surely?
I don't think it proves anything in isolation THM. I just think its just another piece of the usual Tory philosophy we've all come to know and love
They've a core vote whose interests are represented to the total exclusion of everyone else?
Work in banking? What can we do for you?
Work in manufacturing? You don't even register!
Leafy home counties dweller? What can we do for you?
From a Northern city? **** off and die!!!
etc, etc, etc, etc.... Same old, same old
Coyote - MemberAnd herein lies the tragedy. It's no lie that the current lot are a bunch of vicious, self-serving ego-maniacs with few, if any, redeeming features. So, where are the opposition? Nowhere. Bunch of faceless, talentless arseholes who are, again mainly career politicians.
What we need is John Smith. Who's up for a bit of El Cid action?
You pay supermarket manager wages....you get supermarket manager standard MP's.....aka Milliband and Harman.
If we live in a representative democracy shouldn't politicians be representative of the electorate.
Your're mistaking democracy with ochlocracy.
You can say that they can use empathy etc, but my experience of many business men is that they are borderline psycopaths with no empathy and the reason they rise to the top little to do with ability and everything to do with a willingness to stab others in the back.
Show me a 50 year old on 26k and I can with a good degree of probability show you a racist.... red faced.... binge ****ing.... Daily Mail reading idiot.
The problem isn't to many politicians....it's that far to many of you can vote in the first place.
Show me a 50 year old on 26k and I can with a good degree of probability show you a racist.... red faced.... binge ****ing.... Daily Mail reading idiot.
You appear to have accurately described the majority of MPs