asperity Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 This was on EU Referendum blogsite. What do you think? There is a very simple answer to the long-running soap-opera over MPs' pay and expenses. Stop paying them salaries and expenses ? and pensions. Instead, treat them like the adults that some claim to be. Pay each an annual "constituency fee" and let them decide how to spend it, whether on themselves, staff, offices or whatever. Require them to publish annual, audited accounts on their websites and a summary on their electoral addresses if they stand for re-election. Let the voters then decide whether their MPs are value for money. The "fee" would be equivalent to the combined total of pay and expenses, currently in the order of ?200,000 a year. If they decide to pay themselves the whole amount to themselves in salary, fine. Let them answer to the voters ? and the media. But also include a "recall" provision whereby, say, ten thousand voters in any constituency can demand a re-election at any time, to oust someone who is abusing the system. Then, get rid of all the "privilege" committees, pay reviews, etc., and focus on what MPs actually do for their money. That is where the emphasis should lie. Makes sense to me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'll buy into that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Interesting but how would you measure what an Mp does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 That would be up to the individual MP to show that he/she has earned their salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 same way that you measure what any worker does. self assessment of what they are to achieve during a year with goals set that are achievable within the time period and milestones set to measure progress with reviews every three months or so. this system is a government one that is used in most government funded establishments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I am not against it in principle, but how could you compare an MP in an inner city with a mass of population to some one in a rural one with little population Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 So are you suggesting that an MP for a city constituency should be paid more than one for a rural one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 No not at all, how would you measure the difference between them, I would have thought the city Mp would be busier, purely because he or she would have more people to look after, one way round it would be to pay them on population, but as you said that would end up with the city Mp getting payed more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I may be wrong in this (but I'm sure someone will know the answer) but aren't constituency boundaries set so that each has roughly the same number of constituents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I do not no, but I would have thought not,just looking a scotland most of the population live in Glasgow or Edinburgh. I would have thought the whole of the North Scotland would have to be in one constituency, As I said I do not no but it is an interesting question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Much too complex: simple - just pay them an annual salary period. No expenses, no allowances etc. Provide an MPs hostel (hall of residence) for their time in London (thus no personal expense) and they leave when they lose an election (thus no house paid for by the tax-payer, to sell as a bonus). Any reviews or monitoring to be the sole responsibility of an "independent" citizen's panel - so no votes in the Commons for a pay rise. As for the number - a 50% cut to around 300, achieved by combining two constituencies into one - thus halving at a stroke the current ?80million cost. As for "the Lords"; change it to an elected Senate of 100 members, elected on a Party list basis, thus making it exactly proportional to the electoral preferences. Sorted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I may be wrong in this (but I'm sure someone will know the answer) but aren't constituency boundaries set so that each has roughly the same number of constituents? By and large yes.....about 75,000 voters...although in the wilds of Scotland some massive geographical constituencies have as few as 25,000 voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Interesting article in today's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/5045725/When-will-there-be-cutbacks-at-Parliament-plc.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Any reviews or monitoring to be the sole responsibility of an "independent" citizen's panel - so no votes in the Commons for a pay rise. It would be interesting to see how such a panel would be appointed. Could always go back to the very old system where MPs were unpaid....and it was the preserve of the wealthy or the sponsored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 That's the normal roposte for the avarice of politicians Paul; but "cum the revolution", and a root and branch reform of an archaic, anachronistic and corruption prone system; all external sponsorship, interests and second jobs would be banned; and a cap placed on all electioneering expenditure. A annual salary, possibily in line with the "national average wage" would be paid, and all other services necessary to carry out this function would be provided by the State for their period of office (so no fiddles, no claims etc). The idea that high salaries are required to "attract" "the best" in society, I would hope has now been dispelled by the failiures and antics of the banking profession; they don't attract "the best", merely the most greedy and least ideologically dedicated. As Cromwell said of his troops - "give me a low born man, who fears God and knows what he fights for" - when contrasting his Army against the high born Royalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alas I fear Observer, based on history, come your revolution, the same situation will arise....just a different bunch of people. But there you go such philosophical disussions make for an interesting Forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Do we want our politicians to be purely professional politicians, or is it better for them to have jobs outside politics so they aren't insulated from real life as so many of them seem to be these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 A pre condition to being an Mp should be 20 years service out in the real world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Would that be your version of the real world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Work in some kind of industry, get a feel what life is like for the common man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 At the rate places are closing they won't be able to get proper jobs, they will have to join the "city" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 They would have, if they could; being an MP is the next best thing to being a banker, footballer or TV presenter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Expenses:- Total expenses?the winner (by some distance) of the award for the MP who screwed the taxpayer out of the most money over the past 12 months is? Eric Joyce from the Labour Party! He cost you and me ?222,445 in a single year, which was ?13,000 more than any other MP in the entire country. Labour can happily lay claim to having 34 of the top 50 most expensive MPs while the Conservatives have to settle for just three MPs in the top 50. GRAND TOTAL OF MP EXPENSES IN 2007/2008: ?92,749,293 How many years would someone on minimum wage have to work just to get ?222,445 to live on, never mind as a perk? Disgusting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Roll on the revolution!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.