Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 happiness index?

 

 

Yes

 

BBC if you don't fancy trawling through the ONS

 

Also

 

"The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call "the problem of happiness" -- in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude." - from the Foreword to 'Brave New World'.

[Kingfisher]

No second jobs, and pay linked to the national average sound like good ideas.

[colhint]

 

 

Also I wouldn't let any of them stand more than 2 terms. That should discourage career polticians.

There are some bloody good MPs in the H of C, and some very good ones that have been there for a long while. To kick them out because of some strange rule that they've been there too long seems odd to me. 

 

Yes, there are some/quite a few shite ones too. But imposing a time limit on all to discourage a few bad eggs seems wrong to me.

 

 

 

I'm sure there are a few good ones but I also think there are thousands of other people out there who could do better. I also think that there are loads of people who are put off because its just too difficult to remove the incumbent. We then get to the position where it becomes a job for life. Intern, mp, house of lords, knighthood. I think far too many of them think this way. Then you are left with the cosy gravy train, union reps and eton old pals get the jobs through networks, not because they are any good

[Kingfisher]

happiness index?

Yes

BBC if you don't fancy trawling through the ONS

Also

"The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call "the problem of happiness" -- in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude." - from the Foreword to 'Brave New World'.

It seems a happiness index is too much of a wishy washy measure, and is wide open for assholes of the greedy, self serving persuasion to take advantage of.

[bickster]

I don't think 100k a year is unreasonable as a basic as long as there is no second income from other jobs or directorships etc.

I also don't think it unreasonable that they start at 8am and work through to 6pm with two breaks of half an hour. I don't think its unreasonable that they should lose their pay for the day if they aren't in the house to vote (Pairing is such a ludicrous idea), if they are off for longer than three days they must provide a fit note from their NHS (not private) doctor.

On top of that they should get travel expenses

Anyone rich enough to have alternate income streams not related to the HoC i.e investments, should have them looked after by a blind trust until such time as they leave parliament, when of course they would gain full control of them plus any accrued interest.

Anyone they employ in the HoC should be suitably qualified for the position they hold.

I could go on...

[Awol]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

[chrisp65]

I don't think 100k a year is unreasonable as a basic as long as there is no second income from other jobs or directorships etc.

I also don't think it unreasonable that they start at 8am and work through to 6pm with two breaks of half an hour. I don't think its unreasonable that they should lose their pay for the day if they aren't in the house to vote (Pairing is such a ludicrous idea), if they are off for longer than three days they must provide a fit note from their NHS (not private) doctor.

On top of that they should get travel expenses

Anyone rich enough to have alternate income streams not related to the HoC i.e investments, should have them looked after by a blind trust until such time as they leave parliament, when of course they would gain full control of them plus any accrued interest.

Anyone they employ in the HoC should be suitably qualified for the position they hold.

I could go on...

 

So a bit like a properly run business?

 

Such a patently sensible approach.

[colhint]

I still think we should shoot one at random every 6 months, until the numbers come down to about 500.

[Kingfisher]

Hot on the heels of the 11% pay rise, Osborne has announced billions need to be cut from the welfare budget.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I was being flippant. However lets explore this...

Isn't there a world quality of life index, or a happiness index? I'm sure there is.

Flippant again right?

It's a thankless job being a politician. Well paid as it is it's hardly mega bucks and the stress that goes with that money isn't something I'd want.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Meh, it's obvious what is happening, and the march toward creating a desperate underclass willing to work for next to nothing will go on regardless of who is in charge.

 

Next up, give British companies more power to hire and fire (read: intimidate or bully workers into working for longer and cheaper) by scrapping EU regulations, or as the Tories and UKIP crowd put it, 'repatriating powers'.

[Kingfisher]

Meh, it's obvious what is happening, and the march toward creating a desperate underclass willing to work for next to nothing will go on regardless of who is in charge.

Next up, give British companies more power to hire and fire (read: intimidate or bully workers into working for longer and cheaper) by scrapping EU regulations, or as the Tories and UKIP crowd put it, 'repatriating powers'.

Not regardless of who is in charge, but the assholes seem to have it all tied up, with the voting system and the media on their side. They seem pretty confident they can **** us over, and they are.

[bickster]

I was being flippant. However lets explore this...

Isn't there a world quality of life index, or a happiness index? I'm sure there is.

Flippant again right?

It's a thankless job being a politician. Well paid as it is it's hardly mega bucks and the stress that goes with that money isn't something I'd want.

Stress my arse, they get stressed about one month every five years when they attempt to be on overpaid holiday for another five years

[drat01]

Yet another pretty shit week for Cameron. Caught by the worlds media "fooling around" at the Mandella ceremony and then thinking he was above the law with comments in the Nigella case.

 

I suppose with the Coulson trial going on he must be shit scared of what little tit-bits will appear about him .......... it could get interesting

[MakemineVanilla]

Seems we want our MPs to be angels but (apart from Bickster) don't want to pay them a competitive salary. Before anyone baulks at that, the equivalent commercial role would be less than 100k to line manage 50,000 plus people, which is dog toffee salary wise. Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

 

I wouldn't condemn all MPs or even most of them because they are mostly doing social work in their constituencies and just vote the way they are told: they do seem overpaid though.

 

But I suspect that while the rest of us are expected to have our wages determined by the market, there does seem to be an assumption that MPs should not: it must be a class thing.

 

I have little doubt that the market for MPs could withstand a substantial cut and still attract more than enough candidates.

 

There was a general consensus that the wages of plumbers was too high and that it was a good thing to import Poles to drive plumbers' wages down; so why are some workers seen worthy of being exposed to the market, while others are seen as worthy of protection: it can only be a class thing.

 

I don't think that there is much doubt that MPs are no longer seen as representatives of the people but more the representatives of a class: and they are paid accordingly.

 

£74k a year seems to be designed to elevate them into the class whose interests they are meant to represent - it is almost 3 times the UK mean. 

 

When an annual salary was first introduced for MPs in 1911 it was £400 a year.

 

Using an inflation calculator the modern equivalent would be around £40k, which based on the quality of your average back-bencher would seem about right.

 

It seems that back in 1911 they had a more reasoned view of these things than in 2013.

Edited December 13, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[bickster]

Even at 100k you'd be looking at people with a mega commitment to public service to do the job given the scrutiny it is proposed here they are to be put under.

Gawd forbid we'd want someone committed to public service...

[Risso]

It seems strange that they earn so much less than other public sector workers, eg council leaders etc.  Pay them properly and you might get some decent candidates for a change.

[bickster]

It seems strange that they earn so much less than other public sector workers, eg council leaders etc.  Pay them properly and you might get some decent candidates for a change.

Thing is, most people want them grounded in reality a bit too

[chrisp65]

It seems strange that they earn so much less than other public sector workers, eg council leaders etc.  Pay them properly and you might get some decent candidates for a change.

 

if all we do is change the pay rate, what we'll actually get is the usual calibre of party selected party cronies but on a bit more money

 

whatever happened to drastically reducing the size of the Commons? Is that still out there somewhere? Kicked down the road as an idea to consider just after nuclear power stations make electricity too cheap to bother sending out bills for.

[Awol]

Most people seem to want MPs to wear a hair shirt, prostrate themselves before a vengeful public and do a very responsible job for a relatively modest salary given the role, instead of having an easier and better remunerated life in the private sector.

As with most things in life you get what you pay for, unless people want a HoC stuffed with people so rich they don't need the income anyway which seems a bit 18th century (although admittedly there are already plenty of those on both sides of the House).