Jump to content

MP's pay


asperity
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you suggesting that an MP for a city constituency should be paid more than one for a rural one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :?:?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much too complex: simple - just pay them an annual salary period. :shock: 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). :shock: 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. :roll: 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. :shock: 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. :roll: Sorted! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :roll:

 

It would be interesting to see how such a panel would be appointed. :wink:

 

Could always go back to the very old system where MPs were unpaid....and it was the preserve of the wealthy or the sponsored. :shock::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :shock: 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). :wink: 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. :shock: 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. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :twisted::twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...