We are all in this together

[Dave1970]

Unfortunately you are all missing the point. The MP's pay was set by an independent body and even though all the party leaders and probably a fair proportion of the MP's don't want it there is nothing they can do about it.

This is true BUT they don't have to ask the body to make recommendations, as a teacher we too have a pay review body, but the government

1. decides who the body is made up of bringing its independence into question
2. doesn't always feel compelled to implement its recommendations
3. makes 'recommendations ' to the body

and yet they all say they're bound by law to follow the MP's pay recommendations. It almost seems like the whole way this pay body was set up in law favours the MP's. Who makes laws? Parliament. :wha:

They say it comes with reductions in other 'benefits' - fine, perhaps if they were a bit more transparent about what these other benefits are then maybe I could agree. The fact that no-one seems to be saying what they are suggests that they know damn well what the public reaction will be if they let slip just how generous their overall package is
The f**kers can all stick their pay rise where the sun don't shine

 

[calumscott]

<devils_advocate>

What about paying them more? And I mean MUCH more, it's not exactly huge drain on tax revenue anyway.

So give them a couple of hundred K, on a par with the "best" in the civil service and a lot of really good people out here in the private sector.

This could achieve three things sadly lacking from British politics:

1) If we pay them lots we will expect better from them. Hard work and principled politics instead of the media-chasing, votes at all costs politics we have today.
2) If they are seen to be paid a lot and they don't deliver, the voting public will become outraged an actually turn out and vote to get someone else/better in their seat.
3) Paying a wage at the sharp end will attract smart people into politics from other walks of life/areas of business. Why the hell would anyone of sufficient calibre to make it in private industry EVER want to be paid £67K to be a politician!?!? Leave things as they are and all we will ever get are career politicians, those for whom the £67K + Ministerial topup, whatever that is, is their ultimate ambition in life. We need the people who are capable of doing so much more than just playing the political game and £67K just won't bring them in...

</devils_advocate>

 

[Aleman]

We need the people who are capable of doing so much more than just playing the political game and £67K just won't bring them in...

But it does, the 24 Multimillionaires on the front bench are testimony to that. . . . Accepting the pittance of 67K for 5 years while the companies that Daddy / Wifey / Kiddies run, get away with Billions in unpaid tax, is more than worthwhile for them.

Remember that to get into politics takes an awful lot of money . . . you have to be seen in the media in order to be known by the public . . .You won't get in as an independent, people won't know you, the idea of getting out there in your constituency and speaking to the members has gone now . . . people won't turn out because they can get all they need in 60 seconds on Channel 5 at 7

The voting public ARE outraged . . . . but are too apathetic to actually do anything. . . . because voting for the other guy gets you the same thing plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Politicians! Do something radical, have a non of the above option on the ballot papers

 

[Jeltz]

Well I think that it shows the opposite to be honest. Many of the MPs are from the political class, families of people used to running the show. Generations of being in charge have given them the money so the salary isn't really the issue they want the power. However while they are not the elite of society in terms of ability and knowledge IMO.

 

[calumscott]

We need the people who are capable of doing so much more than just playing the political game and £67K just won't bring them in...

But it does, the 24 Multimillionaires on the front bench are testimony to that. . . . Accepting the pittance of 67K for 5 years while the companies that Daddy / Wifey / Kiddies run, get away with Billions in unpaid tax, is more than worthwhile for them.

No, those are the ones who are rich enough to do what they want regardless of remuneration package. The only way to get rid of those is to out-compete them with better talent from the "not quite rich enough to do what they want" pool. You certainly won't get shot of them by offering a wage that no sane talented individual would ever consider for the role.

The voting public ARE outraged . . . . but are too apathetic to actually do anything. . . . because voting for the other guy gets you the same thing

So change something so as to get some different "other guys" on the ballot paper...? Make it more attractive for the people who have the balls to do it but currently also the sense to stay well clear...

Politicians! Do something radical, have a non of the above option on the ballot papers

I used to like the idea of "D - None of the above" but I don't any more. That, to me, paves the way for compulsory voting which must never be allowed.

Instead I feel we should have an officially returned spoiled paper count. That way the apathetic can happily remain apathetic, those who feel there are no candidates worth their vote can be pooled and officially recognised as distinct. (The inherent problem with none of the above and compulsory voting is that you end up in the same position as now, you can't tell pissed off from don't care.)

An officially returned spoiled count would have exactly the same effect as "none of the above", the candidates are left in no doubt that they have very little if any mandate. I doubt that the "vote spoiling public" would allow them to stay in office very long at all, and as for the media...!

 

[Dave1970]

Politicians! Do something radical, have a non of the above option on the ballot papers

totally agree, I'd like to see a 'none of the above' option...that would sure as hell send a powerful message when a huge % of voters ticked it - the problem with spoiled ballots is it doesn't distinguish between those who are stupid or careless and fill in the ballot paper incorrectly and those who are making a genuine protest. There are lots of people that are apathetic but there are also lots who would vote if they thought it was a vote for change. Lots just make a decision that their vote is worthless.
I have always voted on principle but there's no real point (at least in a General Election), the area of suburban Leicester I live in is in a constituency with large area of rural South Leicestershire that has returned a Tory MP since 1950 and the sitting MP has a majority of nearly 10,000 (and that was over a LibDem so it'll be more next time). I could easily decide not to vote but that doesn't make me apathetic - in fact it's a major let off for the politicians to be able to write discontent off as apathy.

 

[Jeltz]

Not really so long as some voters cast a real vote them there will still be a majority. I don't really think that the political parties are worried how many people cast a vote, just so long as a proportion do.

 

[Dave1970]

Not really so long as some voters cast a real vote them there will still be a majority. I don't really think that the political parties are worried how many people cast a vote, just so long as a proportion do.

if 30% of voters tick 'none of the above' then the parties are all going to think that anyone who can win over those voters will win next time - so they will consider changing what's on offer

 

[calumscott]

Not really so long as some voters cast a real vote them there will still be a majority. I don't really think that the political parties are worried how many people cast a vote, just so long as a proportion do.

if 30% of voters tick 'none of the above' then the parties are all going to think that anyone who can win over those voters will win next time - so they will consider changing what's on offer

As they would if an additional 30% switched off the Thursday edition of Eastenders and went and spoiled a ballot paper.

Do you really think an extra little ticky box is going to mobilise them?

 

[Dave1970]

Do you really think an extra little ticky box is going to mobilise them?

Not all of them no, the apathetic will remain so, but there are those who don't vote because they make a rational decision that there's no point. At least the 'none of the above' box would distinguish between the 2 groups and not give politicians the easy way out of writing off discontent as apathy

Look at turnout in recent General Elections - 1997-71%,2001 - 59%, 2005 - 61%, 2010 - 65% - what that says to me is that more people vote when there's a change in the air and when they think that their vote might influence that change.

 

[calumscott]

Not really so long as some voters cast a real vote them there will still be a majority. I don't really think that the political parties are worried how many people cast a vote, just so long as a proportion do.

They don't care and nor should they. If one person more of the people who do care votes for party A than party B then party A rightly have the mandate. They have the backing of more of the people who care about who is in.

That's how our system works.

The sooner people wake up and realise that the only way to change the players in the system is to use the system itself the better. It's not that hard. All candidates sh*te? Vote for the least sh*te or register a protest vote if the MRLP/BNP/UKIP/Green Party are standing or spoil your ballot.

Least sh*te gets in. Others realise that last time round's least sh*te should be easy to beat so put someone better forward. The new least sh*te... and so on until the OK/sh*te boundary is crossed and you get an actually half decent candidate to vote for. Why should they bother putting good people forward if 70% of the people couldn't care two hoots about who is in power unless they are behind a keyboard on an internet forum moaning about the people who got in BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BE BOTHERED!

I suppose it's worth pointing out at this stage that I have no problem whatsoever with people who don't vote and subsequently accept whoever takes power without question or gripe. If any such person exists step forward, I'll buy you a beer.

It's either that or you could have the farce that is American "politics".

So for me, lets make it more attractive for good, non-career-politicians to enter politics (however that can be achieved, remuneration is just one facet) and lets separate the "I don't want any of these, they're not good enough" from the "I can't be bothered".

 

[graysalchemy]

The problem we have is that an election can be called at anytime so MP's are always looking over their shoulders and bothered what the public think or pushing for policies which will win votes and not necessarily the best for the economy. We had 13 years of two megalomaniacs preening their ego's at the countries expense.

What we need IMHO are politicians who are more interested in doing the job than worrying about the next sound bite or what people are saying about them on twatter. It isn't about them but us the voting public.

Whether that breed of person exists anymore I don't know.

 

[Tim_Crowhurst]

<devils_advocate>

What about paying them more? And I mean MUCH more, it's not exactly huge drain on tax revenue anyway.

So give them a couple of hundred K, on a par with the "best" in the civil service and a lot of really good people out here in the private sector.

This could achieve three things sadly lacking from British politics:

1) If we pay them lots we will expect better from them. Hard work and principled politics instead of the media-chasing, votes at all costs politics we have today.
2) If they are seen to be paid a lot and they don't deliver, the voting public will become outraged an actually turn out and vote to get someone else/better in their seat.
3) Paying a wage at the sharp end will attract smart people into politics from other walks of life/areas of business. Why the hell would anyone of sufficient calibre to make it in private industry EVER want to be paid £67K to be a politician!?!? Leave things as they are and all we will ever get are career politicians, those for whom the £67K + Ministerial topup, whatever that is, is their ultimate ambition in life. We need the people who are capable of doing so much more than just playing the political game and £67K just won't bring them in...

</devils_advocate>

Brazil tried increasing pay as a way of eliminating corruption in the senate. It backfired: the increased income made it easier for corrupt senators to hide their bribes.

 

[calumscott]

<devils_advocate>

What about paying them more? And I mean MUCH more, it's not exactly huge drain on tax revenue anyway.

So give them a couple of hundred K, on a par with the "best" in the civil service and a lot of really good people out here in the private sector.

This could achieve three things sadly lacking from British politics:

1) If we pay them lots we will expect better from them. Hard work and principled politics instead of the media-chasing, votes at all costs politics we have today.
2) If they are seen to be paid a lot and they don't deliver, the voting public will become outraged an actually turn out and vote to get someone else/better in their seat.
3) Paying a wage at the sharp end will attract smart people into politics from other walks of life/areas of business. Why the hell would anyone of sufficient calibre to make it in private industry EVER want to be paid £67K to be a politician!?!? Leave things as they are and all we will ever get are career politicians, those for whom the £67K + Ministerial topup, whatever that is, is their ultimate ambition in life. We need the people who are capable of doing so much more than just playing the political game and £67K just won't bring them in...

</devils_advocate>

Brazil tried increasing pay as a way of eliminating corruption in the senate. It backfired: the increased income made it easier for corrupt senators to hide their bribes.

But we don't have that problem here. Unless you count the misappropriation of paperclips. Or are you suggesting that increasing salary would *cause* MP's to try to sidestep the PSA?

 

[johnnyboy1965]

Well Done to all for a very interesting debate. My opinion only
1, MP`s will hold a senior management/consultancy position..there fore they should be paid accordingly.
2, Proprotional representation is wrong, its just not fair for some voters.
3, should everyone be made to vote, but spoil your voting slip, if you want. But compulsory to vote.
4, MP`s should not have any other financial interests outside of being a politician. They are paid to do a job, so I want them to concentrate on doing that job.
5, Ive also heard somewhere about a government that is randomly selected...eg...just like jury service...you do your term and are not biased.
6, Coalition governments, should be abolished, If there is no clear winner the first time around, you loose the party whole came last, and then vote again

 

[calumscott]

1, MP`s will hold a senior management/consultancy position..there fore they should be paid accordingly.

I'm with you there.

2, Proprotional representation is wrong, its just not fair for some voters.

And there.

3, should everyone be made to vote, but spoil your voting slip, if you want. But compulsory to vote.

I have to disagree. At the point where voting is compulsory, it becomes easier to manipulate the population through "forceful tactics". The democratic ideal is "the right to vote" which also by inference means the right not to if you don't want to or don't care.

4, MP`s should not have any other financial interests outside of being a politician. They are paid to do a job, so I want them to concentrate on doing that job.

I disagree. They should just be completely honest about what their interests are (they have to be already), but also about the effort they have to expend in respect of servicing those interests (they don't have to currently) so voters can make an informed choice about whether the candidate could offer the role the right commitment.

5, Ive also heard somewhere about a government that is randomly selected...eg...just like jury service...you do your term and are not biased.

:shock: Erm... no thanks. Have you met, like, most people?

6, Coalition governments, should be abolished,

You know what, I disagree with that too. I think they can be a good thing, I know I'm about to get a battering for this but the current one is really effective. You've got the bigger partner with the aggressive strategy for sorting the mess but the minor partner just keeping things in check and not getting all "last term Maggie" on us, keeping things within sensible bounds and bringing a little balance to the job.

If there is no clear winner the first time around, you loose the party whole came last, and then vote again

That's quite a lot like AV and that's a bad thing too. (And so say all of us... at least at the recent referendum we did...)

 

[Jeltz]

Actually I am in favour of PR, always have been and coalition governments. I think that the parliament should represent the views of the population even if it leads to a repugnant party getting some seats. The fact is that they do have support and a first past the post system disenfranchises minorities.

I also hate the party politics played by Labour and Conservatives where whatever one says the other rubbishes. If we had coalitions then it would require some more grown up discussions to happen.

 

[Dave1970]

only my opinions too

1, MP`s will hold a senior management/consultancy position..there fore they should be paid accordingly.
They are. It's hard to be certain because we don't know the overall value of their pay & benefits package but I'd be pretty sure it's at a similar level/more than most senior managers in the public sector.
2, Proprotional representation is wrong, its just not fair for some voters.
I'd say the opposite is true, PR strikes me as 'fairer' for the individual voter, like I said earlier I live somewhere with a sitting MP with a big majority, this effectively makes my vote irrelevant and means that the election is decided by small % of voters in marginal seats. There are other arguments against PR like it's failure to produce decisive results.
3, should everyone be made to vote, but spoil your voting slip, if you want. But compulsory to vote.
I sort of agree in principle BUT have a big practical concern. If a large number of people who take no interest whatsoever in politics are forced to vote what does this lead to? It might push us even further down the road of politics being more about image than ability, about soundbites than content and about what Mr Murdoch tells the editor of The Sun to say. I think we've already gone too far down this road and anything that pushes us further that way can't be good.
4, MP`s should not have any other financial interests outside of being a politician. They are paid to do a job, so I want them to concentrate on doing that job.
Sounds fair enough, at least the no other jobs bit anyway.
5, Ive also heard somewhere about a government that is randomly selected...eg...just like jury service...you do your term and are not biased.
I think that for the Commons this would reduce democratic accountability, not a bad idea for the House of Lords though.
6, Coalition governments, should be abolished, If there is no clear winner the first time around, you loose the party whole came last, and then vote again
There is variation on what you say called Alternative Voting - each voter votes for a 1st and 2nd choice, the loser drops out and their 2nd choice votes go the others - you keep knocking people out until someone reaches 50%. A lot of country's make coalitions work very well, doesn't seem to do Germany a lot of harm. We're not used to it and our politicians aren't used to working that way but I suspect it would be better in the long run if they had to work together to find policies that had to get coalition agreement. I'm no fan of the current government but I don't think that has anything to do with it being a coalition.

 

[johnnyboy1965]

Post 3, My thoughts behind this are many fold. It will keep a stronger hold on how many people are actually in this country..cross reference.eg how mant people are registerd in a certain address and are they eligible to vote...I can see some people jumping on this statement straight away
Post 3, Its a conflict of opinion (their opinion, not mine, the voter) eg XXXX MP doesn't want a certain road, built through a certain district...but if the MP`s brother/sister/cousin/friend down the pub owns a construction company etc etc etc
Post 5, Yeah, I know, but in theory it would work....maybe
Post 6...two different parties join a coalition government...both had different opinions (sorry cant think of the correct word)...one of them is going to have to give up their beliefs.......eg LD stated that if they got into Government they would abolish tuition fees. Well the LD party are in Government and they haven't abolished tuition fees

 

[johnnyboy1965]

I have got the numbering wrong on my above post...but Im sure you can work it out