Should all MP's be paid just the aveage salary?
Discussion
No. MPs should be picked like juries, for a fixed period, from a pool of the general public. The whole concept of 'career politicians' is flawed, and bound only to encourage self-interest. The original Greek democracy worked this way IIRC.
Each Secretary of State position would now be made up of a small committee of the public, half of which must have worked in a field related to that department, rather than one appointed Minister.
Each Secretary of State position would now be made up of a small committee of the public, half of which must have worked in a field related to that department, rather than one appointed Minister.
LimaDelta said:
No. MPs should be picked like juries, for a fixed period, from a pool of the general public. The whole concept of 'career politicians' is flawed, and bound only to encourage self-interest. The original Greek democracy worked this way IIRC.
Each Secretary of State position would now be made up of a small committee of the public, half of which must have worked in a field related to that department, rather than one appointed Minister.
To which I would add making lobbying illegal, with any unavoidable contacts with business to be recorded, viewable by the public and fully accountable. Each Secretary of State position would now be made up of a small committee of the public, half of which must have worked in a field related to that department, rather than one appointed Minister.
Trouble is that in order to make it happen the turkeys would have to vote for Christmas so it'll never happen.
No. It should be £500k-£1m, with no outside contributions of any kind, standardised office expenses (researchers, admin, etc) paid directly from national funds, and term limits. Want to go on a fact finding mission to Barbados ? That'll be £10k please. Received an unsolicited donation of a couple of cases of agreeable claret ? Off it goes into an annual charity auction.
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
Newc said:
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
You'd hope your average MP is more informed, more intelligent and less easily swayed / manipulated - whether by the media, by populist politicians or by vested interests - than your average voter.It's not a high bar.
monthou said:
Newc said:
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
You'd hope your average MP is more informed, more intelligent and less easily swayed / manipulated - whether by the media, by populist politicians or by vested interests - than your average voter.LimaDelta said:
No. MPs should be picked like juries, for a fixed period, from a pool of the general public. The whole concept of 'career politicians' is flawed, and bound only to encourage self-interest. The original Greek democracy worked this way IIRC.
About 25% of the population of ancient Greece were slaves, and only men could vote in the popular forum, so roughly only 40% of the adult population actually got to vote on policy. The selection by lottery was more the equivalent of picking who would be actually implementing the policy, the middle and upper management of the civil service today. Regardless of whether it would be our policy makers or implementers, or both, should selected by lottery, it would be wildly unpopular with most of those selected. Congratulations LimaDelta, you've been selected to take a 50% pay cut and you're now a Senior Diversity and Holistic Dance Therapy Director in a failing NHS trust in Hull for the next five years. You start on Monday.
If it were the MPs rather than Civil Service selected by lottery, I can see the following happening:
Speaker: "The motion before the House is that those responsible for this new method of MP selection should be taken outside and shot, and the members of the House can go back to doing what they want to want to do. All those in favour say 'Aye'"
House: 600-odd "ayes"
Speaker: "All those against say 'Nay'"
House : A couple of dozen "nayes"
Speaker: "The 'ayes' have it. Have the Sergeant at Arms prepare the firing squads"
Rather than just complaining about our current implementation of democracy and coming up with some speculative (at best) ideas about how to improve it, perhaps look at democracies where the population are generally satisfied and learn lessons from them instead? (I'm only referring to what may reasonably described as democracies - you do technically get to vote in North Korea, but with only one candidate on the ballot box the alternative of spoiling your vote means they then spoil your face with a 20mm anti-aircraft gun). A random Google shows the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland as "islands of contentment" with their elected representatives - what are they doing better, and how would we get where they are from where we are?
Edited by eharding on Sunday 22 January 13:50
Newc said:
monthou said:
Newc said:
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
You'd hope your average MP is more informed, more intelligent and less easily swayed / manipulated - whether by the media, by populist politicians or by vested interests - than your average voter.It would make more sense to pay them very well. Otherwise some smart people who would be good at the job will choose to get well paid jobs in the private sector instead, as they’re not going to want to earn way less than they could earn for purely altruistic reasons. Some may, but in the real world I doubt most smart capable people would.
If the pay was very good, it would attract the best people.
If the pay was very good, it would attract the best people.
eharding said:
LimaDelta said:
No. MPs should be picked like juries, for a fixed period, from a pool of the general public. The whole concept of 'career politicians' is flawed, and bound only to encourage self-interest. The original Greek democracy worked this way IIRC.
About 25% of the population of ancient Greece were slaves, and only men could vote in the popular forum, so roughly only 40% of the adult population actually got to vote on policy. The selection by lottery was more the equivalent of picking who would be actually implementing the policy, the middle and upper management of the civil service today. Regardless of whether it would be our policy makers or implementers, or both, should selected by lottery, it would be wildly unpopular with most of those selected. Congratulations LimaDelta, you've been selected to take a 50% pay cut and you're now a Senior Diversity and Holistic Dance Therapy Director in a failing NHS trust in Hull for the next five years. You start on Monday.
If it were the MPs rather than Civil Service selected by lottery, I can see the following happening:
Speaker: "The motion before the House is that those responsible for this new method of MP selection should be taken outside and shot, and the members of the House can go back to doing what they want to want to do. All those in favour say 'Aye'"
House: 600-odd "ayes"
Speaker: "All those against say 'Nay'"
House : A couple of dozen "nayes"
Speaker: "The 'ayes' have it. Have the Sergeant at Arms prepare the firing squads"
Rather than just complaining about our current implementation of democracy and coming up with some speculative (at best) ideas about how to improve it, perhaps look at democracies where the population are generally satisfied and learn lessons from them instead? (I'm only referring to what may reasonably described as democracies - you do technically get to vote in North Korea, but with only one candidate on the ballot box the alternative of spoiling your vote means they then spoil your face with a 20mm anti-aircraft gun). A random Google shows the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland as "islands of contentment" with their elected representatives - what are they doing better, and how would we get where they are from where we are?
Newc said:
No. It should be £500k-£1m, with no outside contributions of any kind, standardised office expenses (researchers, admin, etc) paid directly from national funds, and term limits. Want to go on a fact finding mission to Barbados ? That'll be £10k please. Received an unsolicited donation of a couple of cases of agreeable claret ? Off it goes into an annual charity auction.
But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
Precisely this. But it's the wrong question. The correct question is: in an age where it is straightforward to set up weekly direct online voting for all citizens, what is the purpose of having a representative MP in the first place ?
If you want to attract the right calibre of applicant, you need to start by offering the right calibre of salary.
Why would anyone able to hold a very senior management position in the private sector go into politics and earn a tenth of what they could be earning?
And if they don't, what are we left with? See the current crop for the answer to that.
Make it a proper job with a proper salary and get some proper people in.
Ari said:
Make it a proper job with a proper salary and get some proper people in.
I agree - the system we currently have encourages the wrong sorts to apply. Part of that is the money on offer but most of it is the party selection process imho. I.e many of our MPs (on all sides) are people who did PPE, worked for a trendy think tank in their twenties, did a bit of work handling envelopes for an existing MP in their thirties and then got selected as a candidate. Pretty much every one of them is useless because their experience is useless.
In my opinion, it’s this that needs ending. We need MPs to be skilled people with a background in the real world and not those that have spent their lives in the bubble of politics doing it all for the wrong reasons.
There’s something wrong with the system if nobody in their right mind would want to (take the pay cut) become an MP and that’s the system we currently have.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff