[Politics] MPS to get £2,000 pay rise.

[dsr-burnley]

Was just chatting about this last week. If we really want to improve the quality of how this country is run we need to get the best people to run it - not average journalists. So I’d put in rules - minimum age (you need wisdom), had to have done a proper job (not worked in politics your whole life (so no Oxbridge PPE graduate, working in think tank for 4-5years , then given safe seat), paid properly (level that runs at minimum large departments (so £100k+) and no external interests / jobs. I know so many people who would do this job but as just being (as an example) a principal chartered engineer pays £65-80K why would you want the hassle of being an MP for a little extra.

If we get people with real skills and qualifications - business people (small medium and large), engineers, economists, doctors, chemists, etc we’d be in a better position. Imagine department of transport led by a Civil Engineer, department of health by a Doctor, Department of Education by a Teacher etc etc.

I read that once all new MPs are elected there party (both Labour and Tories) takes them away for a weeks high intensity assessment to see who is future ministerial candidates - more than half are assessed as not good enough. So that means we have <150 people with potential to run the country. That’s why we see business leaders being given “Lordships” (Lords Drayson and Sugar being examples) so they can be bought in to cover for poor quality elected MPs

The difficulty being that you are putting severe restrictions on who we are allowed to vote for. I reckon the only way to get better MPs is to vote for them, and to not vote for the duff ones. What you're suggesting tends towards a meritocracy and away from a democracy. But it must be ultimately up to the people, not the party bosses, to choose who gets in.

The big problem is that you're voting for two things with one vote. Your single vote goes (a) towards who is elected as your MP, and (b) towards which is the largest party. If you oppose the Tory government but also oppose the Labour individual in your seat, or vice versa, then you're torn; and at present, party allegiance tends to win except in the most egregious bad MPs.

 

[beorhthelm]

The difficulty being that you are putting severe restrictions on who we are allowed to vote for. I reckon the only way to get better MPs is to vote for them, and to not vote for the duff ones. What you're suggesting tends towards a meritocracy and away from a democracy. But it must be ultimately up to the people, not the party bosses, to choose who gets in.

The big problem is that you're voting for two things with one vote. Your single vote goes (a) towards who is elected as your MP, and (b) towards which is the largest party. If you oppose the Tory government but also oppose the Labour individual in your seat, or vice versa, then you're torn; and at present, party allegiance tends to win except in the most egregious bad MPs.

really to get better quality MPs is to get in the party constituency committees where the candidates are selected. or imposed from party central. its all a bit of tuck up isnt it? i'd like to see some way to get shot of the party system, or much looser at least.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm long been of the opinion that MPs should be

1) Paid substantially more.

2) Primaries to select candidates.

3) Banned from any outside business interests whilst in office. This would involve selling off any existing businesses, excluding family members from the sale process.

4) Most forms of expenses be removed from their contracts, but their travel to and from Parliament (and rented accommodation in London) be centrally organised and paid for by the Government.

However you don't move towards that by giving the current lot a £2,000 pay rise when public sector pay is frozen. Would need to phased in gradually, with new MPs under a new contract. The existing ones pay frozen immediately, but can move over to the system if they give up their existing directorships etc...

 

[Bry Nylon]

I'm long been of the opinion that MPs should be

1) Paid substantially more.

2) Primaries to select candidates.

3) Banned from any outside business interests whilst in office. This would involve selling off any existing businesses, excluding family members from the sale process.

4) Most forms of expenses be removed from their contracts, but their travel to and from Parliament (and rented accommodation in London) be centrally organised and paid for by the Government.

However you don't move towards that by giving the current lot a £2,000 pay rise when public sector pay is frozen. Would need to phased in gradually, with new MPs under a new contract. The existing ones pay frozen immediately, but can move over to the system immediately if they give up their existing directorships etc...

I’d agree with all of this.

I would also look at the practice of MPs employing spouses and offspring as office support / researchers, as if they are running some sort of family business.

I don’t believe this naturally results in the best decision making process / judgements, it looks dodgy as **** plus there should be a transparent, open and accountable recruitment process for jobs paid for by the tax payer. If it turns out that an MPs partner is actually the best qualified person for the role, then happy days. But in too many cases it seems to be a convenient and accepted way of boosting household income.

 

[Doonhamer7]

The difficulty being that you are putting severe restrictions on who we are allowed to vote for. I reckon the only way to get better MPs is to vote for them, and to not vote for the duff ones. What you're suggesting tends towards a meritocracy and away from a democracy. But it must be ultimately up to the people, not the party bosses, to choose who gets in.

The big problem is that you're voting for two things with one vote. Your single vote goes (a) towards who is elected as your MP, and (b) towards which is the largest party. If you oppose the Tory government but also oppose the Labour individual in your seat, or vice versa, then you're torn; and at present, party allegiance tends to win except in the most egregious bad MPs.

Good points, that’s why the majority of people in the UK technically don’t have a vote as first pass the post means thoughts living in safe seats (either party) effectively have no vote - eg Horsham where the Conservatives could put up anyone and they’d win. This means that really <20% of people have a meaningful vote once you take out those that won’t swing and those that don’t vote.

The next point is the move a meritocracy better than democracy anyway? In fact is a benign senate based meritocracy be a better option as it could make long term non-political (does such thing exist?) decisions which are best for UK …….- probably not as some numpties would work out how to take it over for their own needs