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.

[Nedusa]

Actually the House of Lords is an important reviewing chamber, rushed or unfinished legislation is passed to the HOL for in depth review , scrutiny and amendment.

Without the HOL legislation from the House of Commons is often rushed to get onto the statute books without any formal peer review would be open to all kinds of loopholes and legal challenges.

The House of Commons is so rushed that in depth review of forthcoming legislation must be reviewed and the HOL is the ideal chamber for carrying out that task.

If the House of Commons was extended and peer review increased with less laws being introduced then perhaps the HOL could be abolished but not under the present conditions.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Actually the House of Lords is an important reviewing chamber, rushed or unfinished legislation is passed to the HOL for in depth review , scrutiny and amendment.

Without the HOL legislation from the House of Commons is often rushed to get onto the statute books without any formal peer review would be open to all kinds of loopholes and legal challenges.

The House of Commons is so rushed that in depth review of forthcoming legislation must be reviewed and the HOL is the ideal chamber for carrying out that task.

If the House of Commons was extended and peer review increased with less laws being introduced then perhaps the HOL could be abolished but not under the present conditions.

Pretty ****ing expensive "Chamber for Refinement"!

[Marcus.]

hear about this today

booooooooo

[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!

[user104658]

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'.

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.

[user104658]

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.

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.

[user104658]

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.

[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.