MPs 10% pay rise to go through

[JFKvsNixon]

Because talented people who are now far more interested in making 200K a year as a lawyer or banker or whatever will actually be seriously interested if you start paying them enough.

 

Currently British politics is dominated by public school kids who have been trained for a political career since they left school. They go into uni and become University Union Officers for one of the big parties, they also join the Young Tories or Labourites or whatever they are called. They finish Uni, get a safe seat "because they have talent" and blammo - new MP for the cause.

 

For that pattern to break the system needs more competition for those seats.

 

I think that whilst the average person doesn't want to have anything to do with their local political parties noting will change. What we need is for the average person to start attending hustings and having a say upon which candidate will represent them them.

[Happ Hazzard]

The whole system needs to be completely overhauled, from top to bottom. It's still essentially the same as it was in Victorian times. There is no need to have all the MPs all in one parliament building every day, just do the debates via Skype and save millions if not billions.

[alchemist]

Because talented people who are now far more interested in making 200K a year as a lawyer or banker or whatever will actually be seriously interested if you start paying them enough.

 

Currently British politics is dominated by public school kids who have been trained for a political career since they left school. They go into uni and become University Union Officers for one of the big parties, they also join the Young Tories or Labourites or whatever they are called. They finish Uni, get a safe seat "because they have talent" and blammo - new MP for the cause.

 

For that pattern to break the system needs more competition for those seats.

 

And how do you suggest that that pattern is broken? It certainly will NOT be by paying MP's more because the route to parliament is always by party structure. To get into parliament you will always need strong financial backing or if you want to try as an independant, VERY deep pockets. To get into parliament you need money, and judging by the numbers who try each time to get in the current pay structure cant be that bad either.

 

At the last election I had a choice of 8 candidates, the three main parties and five also ran minor parties. How much more competition do you think that my ward needed? Another 10 or so? How would that have changed the fact that it will be virtually immpossible for the winner to NOT be one of the three major parties. If you want to get "more talent" into parliament its the current party structure and voting system that you need to tackle NOT the pay. The pay is obviously sufficient at the moment otherwise my choice would have been one rich candidate

[Vague_Boy]

If we want more talented and less career-politicians

 

I'm not sure rewarding MPs more will result in fewer career politicians.

 

It's exactly that type that manages to secure nomination by their party (without which, even the most talented of individuals has no chance of becoming an MP).

[alchemist]

The whole pay structure needs to be looked at as well. Why should a trainee MP in their first year get paid the same as one with 20 years experiance?

 

A possible solution would be to follow the beloved tory policies

 

Start an MP on a zero hours contract on minimum wage, pay them for the hours that they attend. Pay them extra for the number of votes they take part in. Extra for any committees they take part in. Add in some kind of performance related pay. A job of responsibility? extra pay

 

Obviously it needs some tweaking. Also why ARE back benchers paid so much? After all they are only basic voting cannon fodder for the main parties and their whips. They have NO power, NO responsibility and very little freedom of independant thinking or action.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 08:49 ----------

 

I'm not sure rewarding MPs more will result in fewer career politicians.

 

It's exactly that type that manages to secure nomination by their party (without which, even the most talented of individuals has no chance of becoming an MP).

 

It seems at times that the only "talent" you need to get to be an MP is the "talent" to play the old boys network and be an EXCELLENT toady and ass-licker

[L00b]

£74k gross, with trimmed expenses and pension?

 

It's not that much at all for the job and responsibilities.

 

Superintendents, Headteachers and GPs get paid more.

[truman]

£74k gross, with trimmed expenses and pension?

 

It's not that much at all for the job and responsibilities.

 

Superintendents, Headteachers and GPs get paid more.

 

How much experience/training/time served for them to get that...? Compare that to the 20 year old SNP MP.... do you think she's worth £74k of our money? Genuine question....

Edited July 17, 2015 by truman

[L00b]

How much experience/training/time served for them to get that...? Compare that to the 20 year old SNP MP.... do you think she's worth £74k of our money? Genuine question....

She's quite the exception, so hardly worthy of making a point. 'Youngest MP ever, since records began' unless my memory fails me.

 

Now, if she was more representative of the average MP's age, rather than dragging that average down by her lonesome self as the statistical anomaly that she is...

 

What are you proposing? That each MP's pay is assessed based on his/her respective CV and a negotiation, like in most private sector senior positions? That'll come easy and cheap, for 600 or so of them.

 

At £74k, I'm certainly not changing jobs to become an MP. Especially with a nominal job lifespan of 5 years.

Edited July 17, 2015 by L00b

[truman]

She's quite the exception, so hardly worthy of making a point. 'Youngest MP ever, since records began' unless my memory fails me.

 

Now, if she was more representative of the average MP's age, rather than dragging that average down by her lonesome self as the statistical anomaly that she is...

 

What are you proposing? That each MP's pay is assessed based on his/her respective CV and a negotiation, like in most private sector senior positions? That'll come easy and cheap.

 

At £74k, I'm certainly not changing jobs to become an MP. Especially with a nominal job lifespan of 5 years.

 

Not suggesting that at all..you were comparing an MP's pay to head teachers etc..I was pointing out the difference...she may be an exception but it's the exception that proves the rule..there aren't many jobs that pay 74k from the off without any formal qualifications being required.. you didn't answer my question of whether you thought she was worth 74k of our money.. a

Edited July 17, 2015 by truman

[L00b]

Not suggesting that at all..you were comparing an MP's pay to head teachers etc..I was pointing out the difference...she may be an exception but it's the exception that proves the rule..

Right, and so most MPs get to be MPs after how many years of political activity?

 

What rule is this young SNP MP, who got her slot through a one-off perfect storm of a wave of nationalist demagogy combined with a routing of the Labour vote, proving?

 

I'm looking at what they have to do once in the job, btw, not what they had to do to get the job (you know, since the pay is for the job they do as MPs, not what they have done to get the job).

 

I won't presume that you are ignorant of the workload levels, accountability, and public eye life (hand-in-hand with the loss of a good chunk of one's private/family life) that comes with the job of MPs. Sure, £74k looks like a big number to people who are not on or near that much...but, objectively, it's peanuts for that job and the baggage that comes with it. I've known a few MPs (Brit and French ones) over the years, and I wouldn't have the job for double the money and perks.

there aren't many jobs that pay 74k from the off without any formal qualifications being required..

There aren't many jobs that require appointment by a selection panel of at least thousands, and which consist of engaging in law-making for the country and in looking after the multifactorial interests of that selection panel (whether they appointed one or not), with staking the chance of keeping that job based on performance every 5 years (ignoring for a moment the role of national factors and sentiments around GE time that may just wipe it all out regardless).

you didn't answer my question of whether you thought she was worth 74k of our money.. a

That's because it's too early to tell. She may not be, if her inexperience results in sub-par performance as an MP during the course of her appointment. Alternatively, she may well prove that value waits for no years, and that she is worth far more than £74k.

 

On the assumption that she will at least measure up to the job, she's worthier of £74k than a head teacher on £78k to £110k.

Edited July 17, 2015 by L00b