Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
MP's Pay |
|
|
|
Jul 10 2013, 10:23 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
The Beeb reports that MPs are to get a 9% pay rise, putting the starting salary at £74k - that's a little more than an army colonel, and a little less than an head teacher. I already think that politicians are self-serving scum-bags so I'm not overly surprised they're getting such a whacking great bung - and the clever little soldiers didn't even have to vote for it, so that kind of makes it all fine and dandy. Anywho, the problem appears to be that MP's pay is decided by looking at the pay of comparable workers - and someone decided that the comparable workers would all be well paid! I agree with the principle, but if MPs are supposed to represent us all, the obvious answer is to pay them the national average wage - that would make it a whole bunch easier for the poor loves to understand the kind of things that the average schmo is complaining about all the time. I think the average wags is around £24k. Comparing and MP with an army colonel or a head teacher is and odd choice. You basic MP needs no particular qualification or aptitude to do their job in the commons, all they need is a conscience and some life experience, and it's part of the problem that many of our MPs have neither. A couple of years in the army or straight from university into political research teaches you nothing about the common schlob. In any event with the party whips telling you how to vote an MP with her own thoughts and ideas is a downright liability and would never pass party selection. Some MPs get involved with their constituents' problems and that takes some skill and ability, but we're not talking about commanding an infantry brigade or anything like that, you just need a little sense and compassion - so how about paying what a CofE vicar gets - that's also around £24k. That's not going to exclude the low-paid from becoming an MP because it'll pay better than that, and it's not going to exclude the rich because they're already rich and they don't need the money anyway.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 07:31 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 12:36 AM) My first question is to ask if your proposal would likely improve the quality of parliament's performance? I doubt it. I therefore propose that their pay should go up, but only if they meet collective performance targets. If they fail, then it should go down. I understand that punitive charges for failure are more effective than enhancements for exceeding targets. What performance? What do the rank-and-file MPs actually do? How about this as an experiment: suspend parliament for ten years and see if we actually suffer for a lack of any new laws.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 10:15 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 11 2013, 08:31 AM) What performance? What do the rank-and-file MPs actually do? How about this as an experiment: suspend parliament for ten years and see if we actually suffer for a lack of any new laws. Performance is that of the country, a set a markers. Employment rates, balance of payments, modal average wage, inflation, standard of living, etc. But one could also set KPIs for MPs themselves. Like I said, I fail to see how mundane salaries are going to make things better, not do I think it would be safe to let the country run itself. To a degree, it was the Labour Party doing that in the banking sector that has put us in the situation we are currently in, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 10:35 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 11:15 AM) Performance is that of the country, a set a markers. Employment rates, balance of payments, modal average wage, inflation, standard of living, etc. But one could also set KPIs for MPs themselves.
Like I said, I fail to see how mundane salaries are going to make things better, not do I think it would be safe to let the country run itself. To a degree, it was the Labour Party doing that in the banking sector that has put us in the situation we are currently in, I think. The national ones are the measure of the government, with judgement passed at elections. Ask any MP what they (personally) contributed to any outcome - good bad - that matters to you. Few will have much to say about the former, maybe more about the latter (in that they knew it was a bad idea etc). KPIs for individual MPs in their core role of local representative? Interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 10:44 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jul 11 2013, 11:35 AM) The national ones are the measure of the government, with judgement passed at elections. Ask any MP what they (personally) contributed to any outcome - good bad - that matters to you. Few will have much to say about the former, maybe more about the latter (in that they knew it was a bad idea etc). I see that as irrelevant; I propose that parliament gets rewarded when it does well, and penalised when it doesn't. Loosely speaking isn't that how professional life generally works? I see that as a more sensible suggestion than leaving it to business and army generals, or people who are 'only' capable of earning £24k a year. QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jul 11 2013, 11:35 AM) KPIs for individual MPs in their core role of local representative? Interesting! What is up with that? If their effort is transparent, then perhaps we can learn to 'love' or reject our MP?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 04:51 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 12:36 AM) My first question is to ask if your proposal would likely improve the quality of parliament's performance? I doubt it. I therefore propose that their pay should go up, but only if they meet collective performance targets. If they fail, then it should go down. I understand that punitive charges for failure are more effective than enhancements for exceeding targets. You may want their pay to go up but the MPs - at least the majority - are against it. They believe it has come at the wrong time.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 05:13 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 936
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 11:44 AM) I see that as irrelevant; I propose that parliament gets rewarded when it does well, and penalised when it doesn't. Loosely speaking isn't that how professional life generally works? I see that as a more sensible suggestion than leaving it to business and army generals, or people who are 'only' capable of earning £24k a year.
What is up with that? If their effort is transparent, then perhaps we can learn to 'love' or reject our MP? As an extension to that, at elections we should have a box "None of the Above" to put our cross in, when we feel that no candidate is worthy of the job and salary. Then hopefully we will get a better type of politician, worthy of running the country and rewarded with an appropriate salary.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 05:26 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 11 2013, 05:51 PM) You may want their pay to go up but the MPs - at least the majority - are against it. They believe it has come at the wrong time. I do, but it is conditional, as my post hopefully explained, because I also suggested it go down too. The cost of our MPs is trivial in the scheme of things, symbolic even, but what is more important than the pay, is that they deserve or earn it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 06:09 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM) As for performance related pay, wouldn't you have to reward HM Opposition every time something went wrong or failed? You have found the answer User23, so that's why Labour let the Bankers run amok!
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 06:31 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM) I'm not sure cutting salaries to a third of what's being proposed would really raise standards.
As for performance related pay, wouldn't you have to reward HM Opposition every time something went wrong or failed? Err, no, why? If something goes wrong or fails, they all take a cut. Whether in power or opposition, they all are collectively responsible to parliament and the people they serve. QUOTE (user23 @ Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM) Not sure you've really thought this through. I'm hardly publishing a 'white paper'!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 06:32 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 06:26 PM) I do, but it is conditional, as my post hopefully explained, because I also suggested it go down too. The cost of our MPs is trivial in the scheme of things, symbolic even, but what is more important than the pay, is that they deserve or earn it. Who decides whether they deserve it?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 07:31 PM) Err, no, why? If something goes wrong or fails, they all take a cut. Whether in power or opposition, they all are collectively responsible to parliament and the people they serve. So even if an MP campaigns and votes against something they don't support or can't see working, if it goes wrong or fails they take a pay cut? There seems little incentive to oppose or change anything under this system.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 07:04 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Jul 11 2013, 07:55 PM) So even if an MP campaigns and votes against something they don't support or can't see working, if it goes wrong or fails they take a pay cut? There seems little incentive to oppose or change anything under this system. So if the opposition see the government going in a direction that is likely to fail and therefore cost them a portion of their salary, don't you think they will be motivated to speak? Conversely, if the government is going in a direction that might succeed, then they can help it through. Anyway, currently they are to get a pay rise regardless, so it's nothing new.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 07:20 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 11 2013, 07:32 PM) Who decides whether they deserve it? There are a number of ways, but as the KPIs are published, it is obvious whether they deserve it or not, but we could form a voters consultative group who publish a list of graded KPIs, and the parties decided what they can achieve at election time. Alternatively, we could try Simon's suggestion of paying £24k a year, or disband parliament, or even just keep the apparent failing parliament as it is; if that is what people would prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2013, 07:45 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Jul 11 2013, 07:31 PM) There is also the point that Parliament (as in the Commons - MPs) is a totally different beast from Government
We are not governed by MPs as MPs, but by Ministers appointed from amongst MPs (and Lords) by the majority party.
There are 3 major strands to running the country. Parliament; Government; Judiciary. Parliament are supposed to hold the Executive to account. Part of our current problems is that Parliament has had the wool pulled over its eyes for too long by Government for many years I feel less generous towards the MPs than you: I don't think they're having the wool pulled over their eyes, I just don't think they could care less. It seems to me that politicians of all persuasions and vocations surrender to some overarching don't-rock-the-boat establishment pressure. I would add a fourth strand of the state apparatus: the administration, the most malign and self-serving strand of them all. It's a deception to think that the politicians are in charge, they're not, they're just front-men, the power is in the hands of the administrators: and the administration keeps the politicians occupied with their snouts in the trough while they get on with the real work - administration for its own sake!
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|