Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
Mp,s seem to have shortened the time spent on the job,
Is it time they should be paid an hourly pay bases?
Maybe in this drive for efficiency and value for money its time they attached a pay and pension they require to do the job, when they stand for election, it would have to start no Lower than the minimum wage.
And should we pay bonuses for production and outcome, who and why
What do you think each politician we have at present should be paid? And why.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
I think MPs should be paid an hourly rate for a 48 hour week- say £15. This should be - as a maximum - topped up to their present salary level by a bonus dependent on 1. Commons attendance and 2. constituent satisfaction surveys. We have a particularly hard working MP but many of them just goof off much of the time.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#3
Are MPs then, a breed apart and not as we ordinary folk? Is (an) MP a position held or the man or woman in that position?
Whether person or position it is clear that they stand between two extremes. The Government and the governed. Rather than, in the first instance, viewing them as if through a microscope might it help to think of them as viewed through telescopes, in the normal way from the point of view of the 'governed' and in the other way from the 'Government'?
That is. As remote but brought closer, on the one hand, and close but viewed as remote and insignificant on the other hand.
We should all know that the very first thing to happen when you pay someone by the hour is that when they are not being paid they are disinclined to do the work.
The distrust in politics (IMO) goes far deeper than can be understood in mere cash terms. Any and all talk of hourly-rate serves only to keep poor poor and rich above it all. Better to consider how best to position MPs at a little over arms-length from either extreme.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
cannot see it working, attendance in the commons would not be enough to define how hard they work.
some spend more time in their constituency than others plus there are those that deal with problems brought to them by constituents.
#5
Customer satisfaction surveys would be a welcome innovation though......! I have a few reservations though: many voters are not bright/educated enough to understand many of the complexities necessary, and personal prejudice (viz Bradford - or was it Burnley, or Broadstairs.....?! Anyway, it wasn't Catford....) would be more powerful. Satisfaction might rest on having personal issues "sorted out" or personal prejudices pandered to.
#6
Two Keiths both into politics hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#7
Government and the governed,
but remember tom it's the governed that's picking up the tab and should expect a reasonable attendance and effort
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#8
Melissa I think your getting a little bit interested
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#9
#7
You could not possibly be more wrong. (as I tried to point out)
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#10
An MP is both legislator and advocate. To earn his money he should be able to combine both roles effectively. If he can attend 75% of Commons votes while satisfying 75% of his constituents he should earn the full whack. Under 25% on both measures - no bonus.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
#11
BUT, doesn't it depend on the constituents? Or maybe not, on reflection. An MP is appointed to represent the local voters - if they turn out to be prejudiced/biased/uneducated (no fault of their own I add)/thuggish, perhaps s/he should indeed represent that....? I am being genuine, not difficult!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
...We can all see that either all is not well or that something could be made better.
It is (for everybody) the easiest thing to complain.
It is easy too to find things to complain about. We might even agree that on this point we are spoiled for choice.
But, if our aim is to 'fix' something is it not best to identify where the problem lies?
If we, as we are perhaps encouraged to do, fix our gaze upon the single aspect of 'money':they have it, we must and do supply it. What can be achieved?
Yes, I have an idea of what is wrong and what needs fixing and how to fix it, but I shall never be other than one vote, just as we all are.
First, each and all must arrive at agreement that it is the Disease that requires a cure and not just this or that symptom of the disease that effects us at one time or another that must first be attended to. For this to happen we all MUST be determined to vote. (IMO)
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
#13
Keith Bibby only when im extremly bored
