You couldn't make this up could you.....we're all in this together.

[tmcd35]

By "fully serviced" you would include the massive security bill that such a place would require? Surely it would be a prime target for those planning terrorist activities.

 

By "massive security bill" you mean G4S employing those planning terroist activities?

[localzuk]

By "fully serviced" you would include the massive security bill that such a place would require? Surely it would be a prime target for those planning terrorist activities.

 

Yup. Like the massive security bill for the Houses of Parliament, where all those people go anyway...

[Andrew_C]

Yup. Like it or not, we need to be governed. That costs...

[SteveBentley]

Yup. Like the massive security bill for the Houses of Parliament, where all those people go anyway...

 

So two massive security bills is better than one?

[localzuk]

So two massive security bills is better than one?

 

You're making an assumption - that its super expensive to protect the Houses of Parliament. I doubt this.

[mthomas08]

I agree with the pay rise maybe not the best timing but as the saying goes if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. If MP's were paid decent wages maybe we would get decent and the right people running the country.

 

Councils pay vast sums of money to senior staff.

Some Civil Servants are vast Sums of money.

As Elsiegee40 has mentioned many more professions.

 

Some of these especially Ministers run Departments with Billions of pounds in budgets and possibly if a reasonable wage was paid we would attract the right people and this country wouldn't be in the mess it is in. Instead of attracting inadequate people who are incapable of doing the a good job.

 

Yes.. because everyone in government has a "high IQ"..... or that good at their job.

 

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.

Edited December 9, 2013 by mthomas08

[pcstru]

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.

Edited December 9, 2013 by pcstru

[kernewek-sam]

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. Edited December 9, 2013 by kernewek-sam

[tmcd35]

I think this thread is dancing around the central issue. As with the http://www.edugeek.net/forums/behind-red-door/128005-pay-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.

[sted]

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

(Douglas Adams)

“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.”

[localzuk]

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.

[tmcd35]

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.

 

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?

Edited December 9, 2013 by tmcd35

[elsiegee40]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[localzuk]

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 representative:population 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.

[tmcd35]

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...

[localzuk]

Dropping the number of MPs will reduce costs and bureaucracy. Which actually ties in with the idea of austerity rather well!

[sted]

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...

 

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

[SteveBentley]

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?

 

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.

 

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.

[Earthling]

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.

[foofighterjim]

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.

[unixman_again]

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...

This is why enforced compulsory preferential voting is the only fair system. (Currently 22 countries have compulsory voting, but only 10 enforce it. This is a concept that I don't understand.) Even fairer is to include a "None of the above" box which is counted along with the other votes. If this wins, then there is another election and the original candidates can't stand. No government has been brave enough to introduce this. I wonder why?

 

Why do we need Westminster? Surely these days debates could all be done using teleconferencing and voting using Facebook?

[SteveBentley]

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.

 

I'm going to have this problem next time round. The current MP, who I didn't vote for, has proven himself to be very effective locally, but I don't like what his party are doing nationally.

 

A simple reform that would make Parliament much more democratic would be to abolish the "party whip". Make each vote a personal vote for each MP based on how their constituents have urged them to vote, rather than them being threatened with consequences for not voting with the party line.

[pcstru]

No government has been brave enough to introduce this. I wonder why?

Perhaps because we are taught that voting is a freedom, and freedom means that people are free not to vote.

[Simcfc73]

I listened to Radio 4 the other week and someone said that if a candidate changed their name to 'Above none of the' then it would appear as none of the above on the ballot paper......I do find the compulsory voting idea funny, please chose Eton clone A, B or C or we will fine you.

[localzuk]

In compulsory systems, you can still spoil your ballot as far as I know.