KingBingo Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Please explain your choices in the comments. I voted £200k and 150 members. I think the legislative should not provide the executive. Ministers should be appointed from the best in the country, not the house. The role of the MP should be to keep an eagle eye on the government, not hang around waiting for government jobs. It should be a serious weighty role, that demands respect. So I say lets have a handful of very important MP's. Pay them very well, give them serious backup in terms of staff and office. Then let them do a serious job. We have too much dross atm, its dilutes the offering. Case in point: http://order-order.com/2009/08/06/meet-the...igital-britain/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kara gee Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I voted for £25k but rising to £35k. This is the equivelent to a teachers and nurses salary. It is a salary that is average to the uk. Therefor I feel is the equivelent to the average man and woman. Therefor the post of the MPs should attract the average man and woman. I bet if that's what MPs earned there'd be no more HPIs........ever!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Just found this http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/st...ic-context.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rw42 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I'd vote 70k but no expenses - i view an MPs job as actually being in parliament, if they want the job they should be prepared to move to westminister, screw all this second homes crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Lord Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 MP's should earn the national average salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ah, moved. The randomness of the random mods on this site pressed the random button and picked out this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 £1,000,000 per annum. Reasons: If MP's were paid £1m then we would be far more likely get people who were actually worth what they were being paid as those types of people can earn far better elsewhere at present. Almost all of the feckless, lying, immoral, thieving scum we currently have would lose their seats to better candidates. The pay should be capped as to what they actually take home on a monthly basis, say to £35K a year, with the remainder paid on a sliding scale in the years after they have theft Parliament and only if it is apparent that they haven't done anything immoral or illegal whilst in office. You do a Mandy and lie on a mortgage app and you loose a large chunk of what you are owed. They should get free accommodation in facilities owned by Parliament along with very basic living allowances for food and the like or, if they wish they can take larger expenses but it gets paid back with interest from their lump sum in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I'd vote 70k but no expenses - i view an MPs job as actually being in parliament, if they want the job they should be prepared to move to westminister, screw all this second homes crap. That isn't the job though. Your job is to represent your constituency, not just to spend 5 years in central London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patfig Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 They should earn the respect of the populace, only then will things improve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysnake Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Performance related pay would be good What measures are in place to judge just how good an mp is? we have league tables for just about everything these days don't we? I'd imagine assesing the actual worth of an mp would be very revealing, the truth is they don't work for democracy do they, they work for £. All in all this disaterous gravy train is slowley derailing, the total inaction on mp's at a time when the country needs them is pathetic. Time to cull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 It should be a serious weighty role, that demands respect. So I say lets have a handful of very important MP's. Pay them very well, give them serious backup in terms of staff and office. Then let them do a serious job. What I have trouble with is the connection between pay and any of that. One is a number, the rest is aspiration. A reduction in headcount I can see though. Let me put it this way, if you did pay them 200k and they still don't act in a way that commands respect (they may demand whatever they want...and whistle for it), and serious backup as we know from ministers is no guarantee of anything either, then what are you going to do? Pay them 400k? 600k? How much do you have to hike before their behaviour or performance increases? How much do they have to receive before they make informed decisions on the basis of the facts and values clearly articulated to voters prior to election rather than party loyalty/dogma? I don't think the main problems we have are anything money can fix. Do you think 'dregs' themselves have any doubt they are "really" worth 200k already? I think 200k is well past the point where the usual graphs of the labour market make any sense, but if we assumed they were appointed positions then an argument could be made about talent, I suppose, although I don't really buy it personally. People who already earn more than 200k are found in certain industries, I don't necessarily believe they are the best people in the country, I just think they are people who largely work in finance. But they aren't appointed positions, they are elected positions following selection by a party. Calculations about the cost of talent are going to be confounded. I'm simply not convinced that a local party association would select some now suddenly available City worker who previously was too greedy to take a pay cut to offer service to the country and his party would be selected over the typical toadying bagcarrier who'd kissed the right bottoms over a period of years and perhaps taken his beatings in unwinnable locations. Indeed, with 200k on the table it becomes even more rational for our beady-eyed political mediocrity to be positively masochistic if he thinks he'll get there eventually for the big payout. Even if the constituency association were dazzled by the square jawed money maker, I'm not convinced voters would go along with the plan anyway. And what has our money bought us? Nothing. Now we're paying Angela Eagle 200k a year for more of the same because we thought it would change something and we don't know how it happened. It smacks of the circular logic surrounding the CEO pay escalator where their pay constantly increases because no board wants it known to investors that they hired second best. Thus we have a business world consisting entirely of above average CEOs, and despite the seeming impossibility of this, we know its true because every time their pay is negotiated, they get above the average. They have to, or investor confidence suffers. Are you not just really proposing the same game is played with public money and voter confidence? Now we have a parliament of above average MPs who seem to be suspiciously similar to the ones we've had for a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Let me put it this way, if you did pay them 200k and they still don't act in a way that commands respect (they may demand whatever they want...and whistle for it), and serious backup as we know from ministers is no guarantee of anything either, then what are you going to do? Pay them 400k? 600k? How much do you have to hike before their behaviour or performance increases? How much do they have to receive before they make informed decisions on the basis of the facts and values clearly articulated to voters prior to election rather than party loyalty/dogma? I don't think the main problems we have are anything money can fix. Do you think 'dregs' themselves have any doubt they are "really" worth 200k already? I picked £200k because that is normally the basic pay for most senior directors of large successful UK business. Also what a good surgeons or barrister can earn. The current £70kish is I admit a lot. But of you have been living but if you have a lifestyle based on more, say 4 kids in boarding school, foreign holiday wife that lunches etc, then you have a hard choice not just for you, but your family too. I will say though that I only favour such a huge rise IF we also cut the number dramatically. Otherwise, they are already paid more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeine Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Just heard on Radio 2 that the Mayor of Doncaster voluntarily cut his salary from 70K down to 30K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 Just heard on Radio 2 that the Mayor of Doncaster voluntarily cut his salary from 70K down to 30K. He is the underdog in the forthcoming election then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 None and 150ish. None purely because if they were any good the public would freely donate to them, rather than have them 'take' via taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 None and 150ish. None purely because if they were any good the public would freely donate to them, rather than have them 'take' via taxes. You will have a parliament full of those who can afford not to work. That was the case before salaries were introduced in 1912. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 You will have a parliament full of those who can afford not to work. That was the case before salaries were introduced in 1912. Maybe so, but if it was that bad i still believe people would voluntarily pay for better MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Maybe so, but if it was that bad i still believe people would voluntarily pay for better MPs. Why not introduce charges for roads and abolish public funding. According to your line of thinking, if the result is worse than at present people will voluntarily pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Why not introduce charges for roads and abolish public funding. According to your line of thinking, if the result is worse than at present people will voluntarily pay. Wouldnt have any problems with that if it was fully privatized and funds werent siphoned off for totally unrelated govt pet projects. In fact id encourage it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.