Politicians' salaries

[Cormac]

But it would still be a democracy and yes there may well be rapid polarisation over various issues, but without a party ideology to pressure them M.P.s could vote against things that harm their personal constituency rather than be forced to abstain or lose influence. Also I think party politics makes it too easy for people to vote for their favourite colour or faith rather than who will be best for them. It's a hangover from the Dialectic and like the rest of our parliamentary showbiz entirely too archaic for the current society we live in.

The system we have does not need huge ideologically based changes, it needs fine tuning. Are there problems with what I posted? Sure, I'm just pulling it out my arse as a half-thought, but given some time and energy, I think it could work.

A simpler solution might be to require that all votes in parliament are taken as free votes, and thereby ban the party whip system.

There are problems with this too, of course.

A secret ballot would help...

Yep.

There is a reason, after all, that we use one in elections. Why is parliament any different?

[Svartalf]

Should we pay them anuthing at all? They haven't done anything for 2 years. We even pay their lunch and limos.

Senators make almost as much as cabinet members.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28179393/ns ... t-clinton/

If we pay them enough for themm to be honest, that might be worth it... if not, I have moray eels in need of feeding.

[Svartalf]

Right on John,party politics kills democracy.

[Svartalf]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

[Cormac]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

I have to say, I think this is one of the most vacuous statements about politics and the selection of leadership.

[John_fi_Skye]

On the subject of politicians:



Louise Mensch has hit back at her husband over comments that she quit Parliament because she feared defeat at the next election.

The former Tory MP's husband Peter Mensch, who manages the band Metallica, claimed she resigned because she thought she would only be an MP for three more years.

The claims sparked what appeared to be a good humoured marital spat on Twitter, with Mrs Mensch describing her second husband - who she married last year - as confused.

Mrs Mensch always claimed she left her job as MP for Corby in Northamptonshire in August because she wanted to spend more time with her family in New York.

But Mr Mensch told the Sunday Times: "She thought - and I wasn't going to argue with her - that she'd get killed at the next election.

"So, to her, it seemed much more short-term than my job as a manager, which is going to go on for another 20 years.

"And listen, they hadn't promoted her yet, and it's not like she thought she had a future because perhaps she felt she was too outspoken.

"She was doing her own thing regardless and maybe wasn't 'Conservative party enough' to move up the food chain."

In response Mrs Mensch, a former chick-lit novelist, tweeted: "Can honestly say I had no fear whatsoever of defeat at next election since had already decided not to stand again.

"However: nothing, repeat nothing, influenced decision to resign other than inability to hold family life together away from him."

Her husband responded: "This is why I don't do politics. Stick to music."

All, however, seems to have been forgiven.

Mrs Mensch posted later: "Lastly; @maindepowr apologetic but not a pol, doesn't do on message & I love him for it. Thinking of creative ways he can make it up to me."


As I've said on here before, she's quite nice (apart from her politics), and so if she's looking for a toyboy I may apply.

[Gerald McGrew]

Pay them nothing and they represent anyone who'll line their pockets. What I'm wondering is if it's possible to pay them enough to make them immune to bribery. I'm guessing no. I'd be happy paying them whatever the median is of the middle income class. That includes Presidents, Presidentes, Prime Ministers, Premiers etc.

I've seen it suggested that if politicians were forced to live on minimum wage while they were in office, our policies would look drastically different. But as you note, that sort of thing would only work if very effective and strong protections against bribery were in place.

One problem that's recently come up in the states is that even "regular Joe" congress-people who aren't wealthy when they come into office, usually leave office as millionaires. Why? One reason is because of all the insider investment information they have access to while in office. So they end up making very tidy profits from their investments. The STOCK Act, signed by Obama earlier this year, attempts to address that. But it was very informative to watch the fight over the bill and what parties were trying to weaken it and create loopholes.

[MrJonno]

Depends on there level of responsibility

Mp's get £70k , Cabinet members £130k which I think is about right if they didnt get so many stupid allowances,

PM gets £143k which if far too low for someone who is meant to run an entire country and his finger on the nuclear button

The Deputy PM should of course a wage proportional to how much he has contributed to the goverment ie absolutely nothing

[Jason]

One word: Delegation.

Heads of state know how to delegate and do so with gusto. Why should they be paid more than the people who do the actual work while they play golf, smile for cameras and read speeches someone else wrote from a teleprompter?

[Audley Strange]

Since they are so keen on it for others, how about performance related pay? This could be done by having an independent consumer satisfaction survey amongst each of their constituencies, kind of like mystery shoppers.

[Tero]

PM gets £143k which if far too low for someone who is meant to run an entire country and his finger on the nuclear button

The Deputy PM should of course a wage proportional to how much he has contributed to the goverment ie absolutely nothing

The PM has a nuclear button? I thought Tony Blair gave it to Bush? It's with the garden hoses in his shed. Mexican groundkeepers put it on the top shelf in the back.

[Svartalf]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

I have to say, I think this is one of the most vacuous statements about politics and the selection of leadership.

Vacuous? No. It expresses pretty much what I deem those who want power are worth.

[Cormac]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

I have to say, I think this is one of the most vacuous statements about politics and the selection of leadership.

Vacuous? No. It expresses pretty much what I deem those who want power are worth.

What about if your desire for power is to ensure that children get a proper education, or that all people have access to excellent healthcare, or a desire to ensure that homosexual people should be able to marry and enjoy all the stability and support that straight people get from the state in terms of tax and inheritance?

Nothing happens politically without power. Therefore anyone who wishes to make a change in society for the common good must want power in order to make it happen.

Give me someone who wants power over a reluctant conscript any day of the week.

[JimC]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

I have to say, I think this is one of the most vacuous statements about politics and the selection of leadership.

Vacuous? No. It expresses pretty much what I deem those who want power are worth.

What about if your desire for power is to ensure that children get a proper education, or that all people have access to excellent healthcare, or a desire to ensure that homosexual people should be able to marry and enjoy all the stability and support that straight people get from the state in terms of tax and inheritance?

Nothing happens politically without power. Therefore anyone who wishes to make a change in society for the common good must want power in order to make it happen.

Give me someone who wants power over a reluctant conscript any day of the week.

If it was about truly wanting power for such noble reasons, fair enough...

But realistically, it doesn't work that way. Or, if they start that way, after a while, the wheeling and dealing becomes an end to itself, and the corruption spiral begins...

[Svartalf]

I'm looking forward to seeing a true independent run for President here. Somebody worth my vote. The last independent to make a serious run in the US was Ross Effing Perot twenty years ago.

It's a basic principle... any candidate for office that you haven't had to drag screaming and kicking from other pursuits is worth lynching, not voting for.

I have to say, I think this is one of the most vacuous statements about politics and the selection of leadership.

Vacuous? No. It expresses pretty much what I deem those who want power are worth.

What about if your desire for power is to ensure that children get a proper education, or that all people have access to excellent healthcare, or a desire to ensure that homosexual people should be able to marry and enjoy all the stability and support that straight people get from the state in terms of tax and inheritance?

Nothing happens politically without power. Therefore anyone who wishes to make a change in society for the common good must want power in order to make it happen.

Give me someone who wants power over a reluctant conscript any day of the week.

Power corrupts, and I do not seek it. I have a fair guess just how fast I'd join the Dark side. Wishing to ensure desirable things, taking steps to obtain the results, and seeking personal power, in the name of doing so, are different things. The one who acts may do good, the one who seeks a ruling position, even in the belief that he will better be able to do good, is already working for Evil.