IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> MP's Pay
Simon Kirby
post Jul 10 2013, 10:23 PM
Post #1


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 10 2013, 11:36 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 11 2013, 07:31 AM
Post #3


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Jul 11 2013, 08:23 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



Cap them to £50k tops.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jul 11 2013, 09:36 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Given all the expenses and allowances they are allowed to claim I often wonder what they spend any income on. Especially where the Member employs their partner in the constituency office etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 10:15 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jul 11 2013, 10:35 AM
Post #7


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 10:44 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 11 2013, 04:51 PM
Post #9


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MontyPython
post Jul 11 2013, 05:13 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 926
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 05:26 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jul 11 2013, 05:55 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



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?

Not sure you've really thought this through.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 11 2013, 06:09 PM
Post #13


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Jul 11 2013, 06:31 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 06:31 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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? huh.gif 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'! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 11 2013, 06:32 PM
Post #16


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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 11 2013, 07:31 PM) *
Err, no, why? huh.gif 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 07:04 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 11 2013, 07:20 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 11 2013, 07:45 PM
Post #20


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 5th April 2020 - 07:45 AM