[Livia]

Originally Posted by TinyFingeringTim

To put it in perspective people drawing the State Pension get less than £300 for TWO WEEKS pension.

The problem with imposing massive pay cuts on MPs or on the House of Lords would be that only the very rich would do it. An MPs salary (I know we're talking about the House of Lords, but I'm using this as an example) is a fraction of what someone with a decent degree and plenty of drive would be able to earn in the City, for instance. The Chief Executive of my local district council gets a salary in excess of four times what the local MP earns. And I know they get expenses, but a big chunk of those expenses go on staff wages and office costs, postage, IT... a constituency office is responsible for 90-100,000 people and it's always busy, so having a quality staff is essential.

If someone who isn't from a wealthy background goes into politics there has to be a decent financial incentive or we go back to the time when only the independently wealthy went into parliament. And really... that's the last thing we need.

Originally Posted by Livia

The problem with imposing massive pay cuts on MPs or on the House of Lords would be that only the very rich would do it. An MPs salary (I know we're talking about the House of Lords, but I'm using this as an example) is a fraction of what someone with a decent degree and plenty of drive would be able to earn in the City, for instance. The Chief Executive of my local district council gets a salary in excess of four times what the local MP earns. And I know they get expenses, but a big chunk of those expenses go on staff wages and office costs, postage, IT... a constituency office is responsible for 90-100,000 people and it's always busy, so having a quality staff is essential.

If someone who isn't from a wealthy background goes into politics there has to be a decent financial incentive or we go back to the time when only the independently wealthy went into parliament. And really... that's the last thing we need.

That is the ideal of politics - it's not about people wanting/needing big salaries to represent the people, but politics is more about power and self importance, than representation. How many politicians in all parties put the need of constituents before their parties/big business?

Politics should be a vocation, not a jolly.

[Kizzy]

I agree the idea of career politicians is wrong, reduce the money I say then you get those who truly want to make the country work, not just work for them...
Why do these people do it atm? For the money, power, status, business contacts, and protection from the things us plebs would be thrown in the slammer for!

[Toy Soldier]

Meh, I dunno... The less you pay a politician, the more likely they are to be open to under-the-table deals, payoffs and bribes. And you're MORE likely to get independently wealthy people entering politics, who dont need the pay at all, but can use the position to stack the deck to further their "real" financial interests.

Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne, for example, are both very rich men - and it's not from their government salary. Just sayin'.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

That is the ideal of politics - it's not about people wanting/needing big salaries to represent the people, but politics is more about power and self importance, than representation. How many politicians in all parties put the need of constituents before their parties/big business?

Politics should be a vocation, not a jolly.

Well, I know a fair few MPs, and while I can't pretend that they all are committed, fair and hard-working, a lot of them are. Standing as an MP doesn't mean you have your morals removed... some of them - across all the parties - really are working for the greater good and I have a lot of admiration for them. Equally, some should be taken out and shot.

I'd like to see far fewer people in politics who have a pond on which to put a duck house. sadly, unless they earn a salary at least on par with what they could get in the private sector, then we're going continue to get hobby politicians who are either independently wealthy, or divide their time between Parliament and their "proper", more lucrative job.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Meh, I dunno... The less you pay a politician, the more likely they are to be open to under-the-table deals, payoffs and bribes. And you're MORE likely to get independently wealthy people entering politics, who dont need the pay at all, but can use the position to stack the deck to further their "real" financial interests.

Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne, for example, are both very rich men - and it's not from their government salary. Just sayin'.

There are already lots of independently wealthy people there already, because power attracts money.

Any members of the Oxford Bullingdon club are already guaranteed to be millionaires before any career, so their wealth isn't anything to do with politics at all.

I think politicians should be paid the national average, and their pay rises/decreases should be linked to that statistic alone, and if the electorate continue to give power to people with interests that align with business and not people, then more fool them, but I think paying people twice the national average to encourage people to be less dirty is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by Livia

Well, I know a fair few MPs, and while I can't pretend that they all are committed, fair and hard-working, a lot of them are. Standing as an MP doesn't mean you have your morals removed... some of them - across all the parties - really are working for the greater good and I have a lot of admiration for them. Equally, some should be taken out and shot.

I'd like to see far fewer people in politics who have a pond on which to put a duck house. sadly, unless they earn a salary at least on par with what they could get in the private sector, then we're going continue to get hobby politicians who are either independently wealthy, or divide their time between Parliament and their "proper", more lucrative job.

I don't quite get why politics shouldn't be vocational though. I'm sure there are nurses and teachers that could have put their intelligence in the private sector for twice the money as well. The fundamental aim of politics (when done well) is to provide a service for the people. Just like teaching, it's not to earn a good salary, and be self-important.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

I don't quite get why politics shouldn't be vocational though. I'm sure there are nurses and teachers that could have put their intelligence in the private sector for twice the money as well. The fundamental aim of politics (when done well) is to provide a service for the people. Just like teaching, it's not to earn a good salary, and be self-important.

Why would you think it should be vocational? Even local concillors get paid for what they do, and the more committees they sit on, the more they're paid.

I want MPs to be the best people with the best qualifications from the most diverse backgrounds. Pay them a decent salary and you attract the best applicants. Right now it IS sort of vocational. Even the Labour party are mostly made up of rich, privately educated chinless wonders and they top up their salary by sitting on company boards and investing their trust funds. I want them to give politics 100% of their attention.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

There are already lots of independently wealthy people there already, because power attracts money.

True, but my point was that if the pay isn't attractive to anyone else (those genuinely passionate about politics but not already rich) then every position is going to be a posh-boys-club free for all.

Any members of the Oxford Bullingdon club are already guaranteed to be millionaires before any career, so their wealth isn't anything to do with politics at all.

That's not really entirely accurate... that's dependent on a semi-regular presence of their buddies in government to ensure that the status quo is maintained. Their "guaranteed wealth" needs the helping hand of a few political manipulations every 10 to 20 years... they need "friends in power", at least occasionally, to keep the trough full.

I think politicians should be paid the national average, and their pay rises/decreases should be linked to that statistic alone, and if the electorate continue to give power to people with interests that align with business and not people, then more fool them, but I think paying people twice the national average to encourage people to be less dirty is a pretty sad state of affairs.

This I agree with - although I'd use a rough median rather than a mean as that "average". Otherwise, I can see them simply bumping up the average by ensuring that a relative few very-migh-earners earn even more, whilst those in the low to mid salary ranges see no improvement.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

I want MPs to be the best people with the best qualifications from the most diverse backgrounds. Pay them a decent salary and you attract the best applicants. Right now it IS sort of vocational. Even the Labour party are mostly made up of rich, privately educated chinless wonders and they top up their salary by sitting on company boards and investing their trust funds. I want them to give politics 100% of their attention.

Perhaps it would be better if paid politicians agreed to have their investment assets frozen to inflation during their time in politics, and also if they simply weren't allowed to engage in any "financial extracurriculars" such as sitting on company boards...

Impossible to actually implement, of course. They'd simply use their wives / husbands and other family members as puppets.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

True, but my point was that if the pay isn't attractive to anyone else (those genuinely passionate about politics but not already rich) then every position is going to be a posh-boys-club free for all.

The pay of nurses and teachers isn't particularly appealing to most people, yet because it is a vocation/calling people go into it. If you're a politician, then you should be living in amongst your constituents, and not behind gated walls. Otherwise it's monarchy without the title.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's not really entirely accurate... that's dependent on a semi-regular presence of their buddies in government to ensure that the status quo is maintained. Their "guaranteed wealth" needs the helping hand of a few political manipulations every 10 to 20 years... they need "friends in power", at least occasionally, to keep the trough full.

To be a member of the Bullingdon club you need generational wealth. The son of a Euro millions jackpot winner wouldn't qualify, as it's about family, schooling and wealth. To have those 3 things in your favour then you are already guaranteed to be rich.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This I agree with - although I'd use a rough median rather than a mean as that "average". Otherwise, I can see them simply bumping up the average by ensuring that a relative few very-migh-earners earn even more, whilst those in the low to mid salary ranges see no improvement.

I'm not sure it would work like that. When you have an increasing number of people joining the lowest income bracket, then it takes more to raise the national average than a few at the top. If you work it as a national average, then it actually encourages them to raise minimum wage (which is actually a stimulant for the economy as well), so everybody can benefit.

Start linking political rewards to good deeds and work done on behalf of the people.

[arista]

Way off the Subject you lot


All we need is them old gits to ID clock out
They are not going to change
as MPs are connected to this Sleaze club.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

To be a member of the Bullingdon club you need generational wealth. The son of a Euro millions jackpot winner wouldn't qualify, as it's about family, schooling and wealth. To have those 3 things in your favour then you are already guaranteed to be rich.

Yes but the point is that this stretches back as far as politics itself; this sort of wealth is about "who you know" or "who you are related to" but a presence in politics is required to keep the pot full (or growing) generation upon generation. You're not guaranteed to be rich if those in power don't have an interest in keeping you rich. To "tweak" things to ensure that none of that wealth is redistributed.