General Chat Thread, You couldn't make this up could you.....we're all in this together. in General; Originally Posted by Steven_Cleaver
I agree with the pay rise maybe not the best timing but as the saying goes ...
9th December 2013, 12:51 PM #31
Yes.. because everyone in government has a "high IQ"..... or that good at their job.
Originally Posted by Steven_Cleaver
Sorry but like others have said "We are all in this together" but MPs. It won't attract better people when it is the current people getting the pay rises. And that's been shown over years MPs are not the smartest or the most qualified people. They have simply just been voted in and have the money to attract voters.
Last edited by mthomas08; 9th December 2013 at 12:54 PM.
9th December 2013, 01:14 PM #32
What evidence is there that better pay attracts quality? Are we of edugeek "low quality" because we are (often relatively) poorly paid? How did it work out paying millions in salary and bonuses to bankers - were those top notch intellects? Do people who want to enter politics really look hard at the salary? Will upping it make quality people suddenly declare an interest in politics? What exactly does a "quality" politician look like?
I very much doubt there is much link. Sure, MP's should be paid reasonably - IMO they already are. A double digit rise in a time when they are imposing pay freezes (long term cuts) - well, it just stinks. Once again it looks like reward for failure and performance related pay is something for everyone else.
Last edited by pcstru; 9th December 2013 at 01:16 PM.
9th December 2013, 02:02 PM #33
How about some kind of pay deal where like it's going to be for teachers it's performance based, i.e. for turning up to parliament debates, or amount of time spent with constituents etc. I realise logging all this would be difficult and possibly open to abuse, but just an idea.
Last edited by kernewek-sam; 9th December 2013 at 02:03 PM.
9th December 2013, 02:11 PM #34
I think this thread is dancing around the central issue. As with the http://www.edugeek.net/forums/behind...y-schools.html thread, the question is "what type of people do you want to attract to the role"? Then set the level of pay from there. If you want to attract CEO's, Accountants, Lawyers, Doctors, Headteachers, etc, then the level of pay needs to reflect that. If you think Builders and Dustmen bring the right level of experience to the job then set the pay at that level. (Not I'm not saying Builders and Dustmen wouldn't make great politicians, I'd just worry if by Dustman was made Chancellor of the Exchequer - that's all).
As has been already said, since the current level of pay is way below the potential earnings of that type of well educated, skilled professional, it's hardly surprising many don't fancy a second career in politics.
9th December 2013, 02:12 PM #35
politics always has and always will attact a certian "type" of person and im not sure that is a good thing.
not exactly a new quote but fitting
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
9th December 2013, 03:05 PM #36
Another issue here is the number of MPs. I'm not sure we've got that number right. 650 seems like rather a lot. I'd be happy if that number were dropped by a third personally.
9th December 2013, 03:11 PM #37
Really, 215 doesn't sound like an aweful lot. Isn't the current system baised on roughly 100,000 people per constituency? For some reason it feels undemocratic to reduce representation to 1 in 300,000. Surely our politicians should be closer to those they perport to represent not further away?
Originally Posted by localzuk
Last edited by tmcd35; 9th December 2013 at 03:12 PM.
9th December 2013, 03:12 PM #38
I was thinking of this as I drove to work this morning. I guess MPs would argue that their pay is already Performance Related. If they fail to perform, they won't get re-elected.
Originally Posted by kernewek-sam
Many people dislike those we have as MPs and the way things are done, but WE* all voted for the current set up of government and opposition. If we don't like the choice of candidates then the only thing to do is to stand ourselves as independents... but could we afford to?
*By WE, I mean everyone in this country who is eligible to vote at a general election including those who chose not to vote or to spoil their votes... even the latter must hold responsibility for those in parliament today.
9th December 2013, 03:13 PM #39
Dropped by a third, so about 415ish.
The USA has one representative per 600,000 people (or thereabouts). Only one other western country has a representativeopulation ratio of less than 100,000 - Italy. Every other country has more than 100,000 people per central government representative.
Having lots of representatives doesn't mean better representation. It introduces greater bureaucracy and makes any new law take longer to process.
9th December 2013, 03:19 PM #40
Personally I don't see the number of representitives/constituency sizes to be a real problem. A bigger problem is the method of election, first past the post, winner takes all, has lead to some seriously misbalanced, unrepresentitive parliaments. It's an interesting state of affairs when our great leader gained office with 36% of the popular vote. 64% of the country doesn't want him there...
9th December 2013, 03:22 PM #41
Dropping the number of MPs will reduce costs and bureaucracy. Which actually ties in with the idea of austerity rather well!
9th December 2013, 03:24 PM #42
no system is entirely fair. If you went full pr and say 70% voted for party x you may end up in an area that to make 70% of the country party x that even though nobody voted for them they are your representative
Originally Posted by tmcd35
9th December 2013, 03:37 PM #43
Which is generally a good way to throw your deposit money down the drain. We're getting more and more towards a stage where only the big parties have any sort of media coverage of their campaign, and so only those who are really interested will have taken the trouble to even know who is standing, let alone what their policies are.
Originally Posted by elsiegee40
Independents don't even get their name shown on captions on the news any more, just a "for a full list of candidates look at our website" mention. The televised debates between the three main party leaders were, in my view, an affront to local democracy, making it even less likely that anybody other than a candidate standing for any of the those parties would be elected, because they put it into people's heads that they only had three choices.
9th December 2013, 04:09 PM #44
I listened to this on R5 Live yesterday, while I was doing my ironing (as you do).
I'm afraid the cynic in me heard three different MP's (I think they were all MP's, I was ironing a particularly favourite shirt and my mind wasn't fully on the radio) shrugging their shoulders and saying a variation of 'Well, if it was up to us MP's, we wouldn't award ourselves a pay-rise, but IPSA have said we should have it, so there's not a lot we can do about it'.
They all said they shouldn't accept it, but hey, let's wait until after the next election and see what happens then, when one or other of the Big Two Parties has another five years before they can be voted out.
I'm in favour of a hostel/serviced apartment block, a flat-salary of £100,000 pa (nice round figure, no sums done) and the satisfaction of knowing you've served your country and your constituency.
9th December 2013, 04:19 PM #45
The problem I have always had with General Elections is that I may want to vote for a particular local candidate but may not necessarily want the party they represent to win at the national level.
By CAM in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 14th January 2013, 03:08 PM
By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 25th November 2011, 10:07 AM
By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 24th November 2011, 10:46 AM
By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 23rd November 2011, 05:08 PM
By laserblazer in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 3rd August 2011, 05:53 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)