0
0 On Sat 13 Mar 2010 at: 10:16
Off-Message wrote:
I'd be interested in intelligent non-partisan thoughts on the following: a consensus has emerged, both among the public, and 'in the house', that it's time MPs' pay was no longer set by MPs themselves. But it seems to me that it's precisely this arrangement that has kept MPs' pay at a (relatively) sensible level! Of course, MPs' cover has been blown over the last year: we now know that to get round this unfortuntate thing called democracy many MPs have conned the public into thinking they don't get paid much while at the same time milking the public in secret for all the 'expenses' they could get. But there seems no chance that this cosy system will be allowed to return and henceforth MPs' expenses will be in the public domain for all to see. So given that, why not leave MPs to set their own pay? If in future MPs' pay is set by some sort of public sector pay parity committee (consisting, no doubt, of highly paid civil servants), we know what's going to happen: MPs' pay will start going up to the level of many chief exectutives of local authorities or government quangos, many of whom already 'earn' more than the Prime Minister. No wonder so many MPs are in favour of change!
Have I missed something?
0
0 On Sat 13 Mar 2010 at: 14:01
Sherlock wrote:
I understood that at one point in the past MPs' pay was set in line with a specific civil service grade, though I can't remember which grade it was - though certainly not a permanent secretary. That seems a pretty uncontroversial way of arranging things to me and one they might want to consider returning to.
0
0 On Sun 14 Mar 2010 at: 20:57
Brixtonbelle wrote:
MP's no longer set their own pay and they voted to change this a couple of years ago. The rise they get every year now is based on an average calculation of public sector workers pay rise.
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 10:08
Off-Message wrote:
Seems you're right BB. I should keep up. But in that case MPs shouldn't be allowed to decline the recent award by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Now they've farmed it out to civil servants, they should accept the result, otherwise they're trying to have it both ways. If all the Senior Salaries Review Body is going to do is announce a 1 or 2% increase every now and again, there's no point in it: MPs can, and should, do that for themselves. On the other hand a more credible and fundamental review of MPs' pay would probably conclude, certainly compared with many other public sector posts, that MPs are actually rather poorly paid. But that's got lead baloon potential. Perhaps they should cut the number of MPs (do we really need 650-odd of them?) but pay those that remain a bit more? We certainly need higher calibre MPs than many we're got at present.
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 10:26
sashimi wrote:
Off-message, you are absolutely on-message. If the three party leaders all decline their 1% pay rise this year (because it's an election year) and MPs follow their example, eventually MPs pay will be out of kilter with their costs and they will start fiddling their expenses again with a nod and wink from the Fees Office. Sometime at the end of the 18th or early 19th century a decision was taken to pay judges an obscene amount of salary to stop them taking bribes. It's the same principle here. The USA manages with 250 Representatives and 100 senators. We have 650 MPs and 550 Lords with one fifth of the population. There's room for some efficiency savings at the very top IMO.
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 11:07
Independent thinker wrote:
Sashimi, sorry to be pedantic but the USA has 435 Representatives, not 250, plus the 100 Senators at the federal level, but each state also has its own Senators and Representatives as well as Governors. Add in all the City councils and mayors and you'll probably find they're not that much more efficient. Though point taken that there's room for savings here.
Oh, and I agree that MPs shouldn't have a say in what they're paid, and it should be enough that they won't go looking for more somewhere else (whether through outside directorships or expenses fiddling). It should be a full time, well paid job to attract the very best candidates.
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 17:53
sashimi wrote:
Independent thinker, you are quite right about the House of Representatives and I am ashamed of myself making such a basic error. But the state assemblies are the equivalent of county councils, etc so I think it's fair to compare numbers at the top level. But we are agreed then. It's like wine, we should have less but better.
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 19:17
Sherlock wrote:
I doubt if the state houses of representatives and senates would see themselves as 'the equivalent of county councils'. California, for example has a population of almost 37 million and if a separate country would be among the richest in the world. In many ways the states are separate countries that have chosen to come together in the United States. East Sussex somehow doesn't feel the same!
0
0 On Mon 15 Mar 2010 at: 21:40
sashimi wrote:
Sherlock, the population of the USA is approximately 5 times that of GB. Yorkshire with a population of 5 million would be the equivalent of a state with 25 million in US - just like Texas.
0
0 On Tue 16 Mar 2010 at: 15:05
BRIXTONBELLE wrote:
Sherlock-Sashimi - are you two married ?
0
0 On Tue 16 Mar 2010 at: 16:42
Sherlock wrote:
Brixtonbelle - I don't think so, Sashimi's post is so transparently illogical it's difficult to find the words to argue with it.
0
0 On Wed 17 Mar 2010 at: 07:55
sashimi wrote:
Sherlock is clearly a policy wonk and I am just doing my bit for my native Yorkshire.
0
0 On Wed 17 Mar 2010 at: 10:32
Sherlock wrote:
Sashimi - you must be the George W Bush of Yorkshire.
0
0 On Wed 17 Mar 2010 at: 22:22
Brixtonbelle wrote:
See - you bicker like a married couple.
0
0 On Sat 20 Mar 2010 at: 21:24
thomas wrote:
BARONESS UDDER SUMS THIS UP she is still ripping us off