Should MP'S be made to live on benefits or min wage for a month.

[Anna B]

I know it can be easily mocked, but I do think that there should be a concerted effort to get wore working class MPs.

Since the demise of the unions and the Labour Party being less interested, there is a huge disconnect between people and parliament.

There was an organised campaign to get more women and ethnic minorities into parliament, why not working class people?

 

I agree. How can MPs represent the people who elected them when they know nothing about their lives?

 

I also think they should have to do a minimum of a month every year in a frontline job; working in a hospital for example, or a school.

 

We have too many MPs and far too many people in the house of Lords, not to mention the EU. Add in all the advisors, civil servants etc and it's costing us an absolute fortune - and for what? Let's save some money by cutting the numbers by half. It's happening in most other industries, why should they be exempt?

[Happ Hazzard]

The whole system of parliament is largely the same as it was in Victorian times. It needs to be brought into line with the reality of the 21st century. Do we really need all the MPs in the House of Commons every day? Why can't they debate and vote online?

[Cyclone]

Nope, not a month, that would be TOO easy with their backups, make it a year, or even better a full parlimentary term of 5 years. That would wipe out their reserves, max their credit cards and put them into wonga territory. THEN they will know how everyone else lives

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2013 at 08:33 ----------

 

 

Well we have a system at the moment where only the rich CAN become MP's so what would be the difference?

 

We don't, but if it didn't pay worth a damn then we really would.

[Ridgeway84]

The whole system of parliament is largely the same as it was in Victorian times. It needs to be brought into line with the reality of the 21st century. Do we really need all the MPs in the House of Commons every day? Why can't they debate and vote online?

 

Yes we do. To debate properly, cyber faffing is no substitute, these are massive adult issues, not the X Factor. There are also many cross party committees to attend where quality discussion is required.

[alchemist]

The whole system of parliament is largely the same as it was in Victorian times. It needs to be brought into line with the reality of the 21st century. Do we really need all the MPs in the House of Commons every day? Why can't they debate and vote online?

 

We dont need that many to be actually there, no. most of them vote the party whip and so dont take part or even attend the debates except when they have to be swept out of the bars to act as cannon fodder through the voting chamber, only stopping on the way to find out which way they are voting. I bet half of them dont even know what they are voting ON!!!

 

I would hazard a guess that at least 300 of them are a complete waste of money

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2013 at 08:57 ----------

 

We don't, but if it didn't pay worth a damn then we really would.

 

you sure? how much time and MONEY is spent in the various political backwaters getting noticed enough for one of the partys to even THINK about putting them onto the candidates list? Not something you can do with a fulltime job, so therefore you need money backing

[ECCOnoob]

I agree. How can MPs represent the people who elected them when they know nothing about their lives?

 

A lawyer has never been arrested but it does not stop them representing you and acting in your best interests.

 

A doctor has never lost a leg but it does not stop them performing surgery and providing medication best for the pain a patient is suffering.

 

Do you really think a house full of MP's from jobless background with years of experience on the dole and a poor or low accademic record are really suitable to run the country in our best interests. Have you any idea how complex and detailed their day to day work can be. There is far more to their job than just sitting in the chamber shouting at each other.

 

Joanna Lumley described her experience of working alongside MPs for her campaign saying that part of this job of being a good MP is learning and reading masses of information, reaserch, statistics and reports. You have to interpret and give this information openly to the people you represent and you have to be smart.

 

Its not a job any tom dick or harry could do. I want someone who has studied, shown they can retain and process information, show they can form considered opinions and make hugely complex decisions on matters.

 

What needs to change is the way that MPs are controlled and regulated. Cut all the expenses, cut all the allowances, cut all the second homes, cut the gravy train and give them one wage at a high enough rate that justifies what they do. That would stop all this nonsense.

 

Despite what people may think £65,738 is not enough. There are middle management, journalists, civil servants, lawyers, skilled trades, medical practictioners who earn far far more than that a year.

 

Something around £90 - 100k (full stop) would be more appropraite. That way they are seen to us public as paying their own way for everything, no freebies, no allowances but earning a wage which justifies what they do.

 

MPs have not been blameless but they are the weak story and easy target. How about the NHS executives on £200k - £300k a year. The School headteachers on £100k plus and of course my ultimate hypocracy, those Union chiefs "standing up for the people and all that" Really?

 

Some examples from last year or so

RMT - £123,383

Fire - £120,124

NUT - £116,836

PCSU- £113,350

UNISON £127,436 (inc benefits)

and £500,000 for the former boss of UNITE (including a £310,000 redundancy package)

 

Want to be an MP?? ... makes you wonder why they bother

[Mister M]

A lawyer has never been arrested but it does not stop them representing you and acting in your best interests.

 

A doctor has never lost a leg but it does not stop them performing surgery and providing medication best for the pain a patient is suffering.

 

Do you really think a house full of MP's from jobless background with years of experience on the dole and a poor or low accademic record are really suitable to run the country in our best interests. Have you any idea how complex and detailed their day to day work can be. There is far more to their job than just sitting in the chamber shouting at each other.

 

Joanna Lumley described her experience of working alongside MPs for her campaign saying that part of this job of being a good MP is learning and reading masses of information, reaserch, statistics and reports. You have to interpret and give this information openly to the people you represent and you have to be smart.

 

Its not a job any tom dick or harry could do. I want someone who has studied, shown they can retain and process information, show they can form considered opinions and make hugely complex decisions on matters.

 

What needs to change is the way that MPs are controlled and regulated. Cut all the expenses, cut all the allowances, cut all the second homes, cut the gravy train and give them one wage at a high enough rate that justifies what they do. That would stop all this nonsense.

 

Despite what people may think £65,738 is not enough. There are middle management, journalists, civil servants, lawyers, skilled trades, medical practictioners who earn far far more than that a year.

 

Something around £90 - 100k (full stop) would be more appropraite. That way they are seen to us public as paying their own way for everything, no freebies, no allowances but earning a wage which justifies what they do.

 

MPs have not been blameless but they are the weak story and easy target. How about the NHS executives on £200k - £300k a year. The School headteachers on £100k plus and of course my ultimate hypocracy, those Union chiefs "standing up for the people and all that" Really?

 

Some examples from last year or so

RMT - £123,383

Fire - £120,124

NUT - £116,836

PCSU- £113,350

UNISON £127,436 (inc benefits)

and £500,000 for the former boss of UNITE (including a £310,000 redundancy package)

 

Want to be an MP?? ... makes you wonder why they bother

 

I agree that there are some people in the public sector jobs who earn more than the PM - it's disgusting and greedy

[Anna B]

The whole system of parliament is largely the same as it was in Victorian times. It needs to be brought into line with the reality of the 21st century. Do we really need all the MPs in the House of Commons every day? Why can't they debate and vote online?

 

This is true of many institutions in this country. We are hidebound by 'tradition' more suited to the 19th century, and refuse to move with the times. It encourages class division and the old boy's network, and it's holding us back.

 

We need to update, innovate and be more creative to get the best out of people.

[alchemist]

The School headteachers on £100k plus

 

You should be comparing like with like not randomly picking jobs. the head teacher has reached that point in the career structure through time spent qualifications and experiance. In MP terms the head teacher is the PM and the backbenchers are teachers, cabniet ministers head of departmentss etc. On that basis a new MP just elected should be paid the same as a newly qualified trainee teacher starting in their first school. Now forgive me for not knowing the salaries of the teaching profession as well as you seem to do, but I am pretty sure the trainee teacher does not get 64k, or do they?

[ECCOnoob]

You should be comparing like with like not randomly picking jobs. the head teacher has reached that point in the career structure through time spent qualifications and experiance. In MP terms the head teacher is the PM and the backbenchers are teachers, cabniet ministers head of departmentss etc. On that basis a new MP just elected should be paid the same as a newly qualified trainee teacher starting in their first school. Now forgive me for not knowing the salaries of the teaching profession as well as you seem to do, but I am pretty sure the trainee teacher does not get 64k, or do they?

 

A headteacher runs a school. The PM runs the country.

 

Just £15k - £20k difference in pay between the two?

NHS and Civil Service executives on double the PM's salary?

 

That cannot be right.

 

I agree that trainee teachers and nurses dont earn MP level wages but....

 

Most MPs be them backbenchers or not have had senior level jobs in the corporate or civil service sectors. They have had to undergo years of volunteering work, local committee work, working in civil service research jobs or caseworkers, have shown a committed interest and active interest in politics, had to seek support, donations and fund their own campaigns often leading to rejections or failed votes before they so much as get near parliament. Then after just 4 years, you could be cast out and end of job. Not a risk most teachers face every few years.