Are We On The Verge of a UK-style MP Scandal

[Argus]

The problem with paying MPs relatively little money is that it makes the jobs quite unattractive. Ideally, we want to attract the best and brightest, who can make the most informed and well thought out decisions, into positions of power. Such people have the ability to become successful entrepreneurs, executives, professionals, etc, in the private sector. Being a politician needs to offer comparable rewards to such occupations if we want to attract high caliber people.

That is the old tried and true explanation. It hasn't worked, though. MPs make considerably more than the average salary now, and yet I would estimate the skills and abilities of the average MP have actually declined over the years. We don't get good people. For the most part, we get mediocre people who think the MPs salaries are really good, and have a longing for the even higher salaries - and power - of cabinet.

We should pay our representatives nothing except compensation for their not working at their previous jobs. Therefore, the compensation should be what they would have made had they stayed in their old jobs.

There should be no office expenses. MP secretaries and assistants should work for Parliament, just like the clerks, security guards, cleaners, waitresses, and IT repair people. MPs offices should function on supplies etc. which come from parliament. Any equipment, ie, fax machines, PCs, should come from parliamet. If MPs want travel money that should be cleared by the apropriate parliamentary office.

[Bonam]

We should pay our representatives nothing except compensation for their not working at their previous jobs. Therefore, the compensation should be what they would have made had they stayed in their old jobs.

So if they used to be a CEO of a large corporation making several million a year we should pay them that, and if they used to work as a cashier at a grocery store we should pay them minimum wage?

[Smallc]

Argus, your estimates have very little value in reality.

[Argus]

So if they used to be a CEO of a large corporation making several million a year we should pay them that, and if they used to work as a cashier at a grocery store we should pay them minimum wage?

Yes.

[Argus]

del

Edited July 4, 2009 by Argus

[August1991]

In the olden days of the British parliament MPs were not paid.

But we're not in "olden days". Nowadays, a South Carolina governor can't travel without anyone curious in the world knowing.

Increasingly, I think this "pay them well with office and travel expenses so that they'll be honest" is just an encouragement to let them spend my money.

I'm inclined to give MPs nothing and let the Internet deal with their honesty.

Edited July 4, 2009 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But we're not in "olden days". Nowadays, a South Carolina governor can't travel without anyone curious in the world knowing.

Increasingly, I think this "pay them well with office and travel expenses so that they'll be honest" is just an encouragement to let them spend my money.

I'm inclined to give MPs nothing and let the Internet deal with their honesty.

The internet? You must be kidding!

MP's salaries are not the question. Public perception isn't either. The question is their spending habits on an individual level. It is actually an interesting question because it brings up the concept of accountability. There is the root of the problem folks.

[ToadBrother]

That is the old tried and true explanation. It hasn't worked, though. MPs make considerably more than the average salary now, and yet I would estimate the skills and abilities of the average MP have actually declined over the years. We don't get good people. For the most part, we get mediocre people who think the MPs salaries are really good, and have a longing for the even higher salaries - and power - of cabinet.

Could you tell me what the average education of an MP 15 years ago was? How about 30? How about 100? Heck, do you even know what the average level is now?

This looks like nothing more than you cribbing together some B.S. to try to justify your position.

We should pay our representatives nothing except compensation for their not working at their previous jobs. Therefore, the compensation should be what they would have made had they stayed in their old jobs.

There should be no office expenses. MP secretaries and assistants should work for Parliament, just like the clerks, security guards, cleaners, waitresses, and IT repair people. MPs offices should function on supplies etc. which come from parliament. Any equipment, ie, fax machines, PCs, should come from parliamet. If MPs want travel money that should be cleared by the apropriate parliamentary office.

I think we should pay every backbencher $250,000 a year+1% annual increase, and cabinet ministers (including the PM) $500,000+1% increase per year. Start, say, 2010 as the starting year for each rate, so that back-benchers in 2011 would get $252500, and in 2012 they would get $255025, and so on.

Out of that they must provide for their own staff, office furniture and equipment and their own pension. Have these rates put in the Constitution so that they can't vote themselves raises, ever.

[ToadBrother]

But we're not in "olden days". Nowadays, a South Carolina governor can't travel without anyone curious in the world knowing.

Increasingly, I think this "pay them well with office and travel expenses so that they'll be honest" is just an encouragement to let them spend my money.

I'm inclined to give MPs nothing and let the Internet deal with their honesty.

As we've seen in Iran, the Internet is a two-edged sword.

What you're advocating is simply restoring things to the incredible corruption of the pre-19th century Westminster system.

I can tell you right now, I would never run if I was told "you're not getting paid", and I'd suggest most wouldn't. IS there some reason you only want the wealthy in politics?

[August1991]

So let's see, pay them crap and hardly use them. This is sounding more like how democracy happens in the People's Republic of China.

But let democracy and the Internet keep them honest.

If they take money, we toss them.

We should pay our representatives nothing except compensation for their not working at their previous jobs. Therefore, the compensation should be what they would have made had they stayed in their old jobs.

There should be no office expenses.

I tend to agree.

This Trudeau "pay MPs research money" idea just seems to create entitlement. I don't know.

[August1991]

The internet? You must be kidding!

MP's salaries are not the question. Public perception isn't either. The question is their spending habits on an individual level. It is actually an interesting question because it brings up the concept of accountability. There is the root of the problem folks.

Dingwall's comment that "I'm entitled to my entitlements" explained well how modern MPs now game the system.

IOW, the trick in modern government (politicians/bureaucrats) is to create arcane rules and then play them for personal benefit. It's called gaming the system (but I prefer the term "troughing").

Argus' response or idea is to eliminate the system of entitlement so that MPs have nothing to game. If MPs have no salary, no research money, no riding office money, no travel money, no designated spouse money, no meal expense money - they have no system to game. They have no entitlement to argue about. (I suspect that politicians/bureaucrats would just game that system... )

Argus can correct me but Argus and I are trying to imagine systems that are game-proof. It's tough to do.

----

Naive socialists and leftists believe that government employees and politicians work for the public good. Under this logic, if we pay them more, we will get better politicians and bureaucrats. I can't speak for Argus but know that such a belief is rarely if ever true.

IME, politicians and government employees game the system (trough) when possible.

Edited August 18, 2009 by August1991

[Remiel]

So you want to replace the system with one where the wealthy get to "game the system". There may be a slight difference in that the have to "ante up" a token amount, but once they've bought in the rules are stacked in their favour.

On the other hand, it is the mythical "taxpayer" who is also gaming this system: something for nothing. In one breath you dismiss the idea that people enter the public service for the public good, and then you propose a system that relies on this very notion!

You really are going off the deep end, August.

[Molly]

Whoa.

Everyone seems to be talking generous amounts of money to be paid through a variety pack of alternative methods..... but did anyone actually do the math on this?

$127,000,000 divided by 308 MPs is over $400,000 apiece!!!!!!!!!!! in 'exenses'... $1100+/day in expenses, for every last one of them, every single day, even the lazy Sundays spent laying around in their underwear...

that doesn't appear to include the $157,000 salary and/or 25,500 expense allowance they all get (or the bonuses if they get titled the assistant to the assistant deputy minister without protfolio in charge of tiddlywinks).

Go get 'em, Shiela!

[Alta4ever]

Whoa.

Everyone seems to be talking generous amounts of money to be paid through a variety pack of alternative methods..... but did anyone actually do the math on this?

$127,000,000 divided by 308 MPs is over $400,000 apiece!!!!!!!!!!! in 'exenses'... $1100+/day in expenses, for every last one of them, every single day, even the lazy Sundays spent laying around in their underwear...

that doesn't appear to include the $157,000 salary and/or 25,500 expense allowance they all get (or the bonuses if they get titled the assistant to the assistant deputy minister without protfolio in charge of tiddlywinks).

Go get 'em, Shiela!

They have commitee travel which takes them to foriegn land, i assume the prime ministers cost of travel is added to that figure. Not to mention the cost of travel to and from your riding. Office expenses and staff. $400,000 per member is actually quite cheap. If how ever you don't like the total number how about we reduce the number of seats.

[punked]

They have commitee travel which takes them to foriegn land, i assume the prime ministers cost of travel is added to that figure. Not to mention the cost of travel to and from your riding. Office expenses and staff. $400,000 per member is actually quite cheap. If how ever you don't like the total number how about we reduce the number of seats.

Scott Brision today was in BC for a "Liberal celebrity cook off" that is on the other side of the country from his ridding. Did my tax dollars pay for that?

[Molly]

To and from ridings is about $26 million, Alta. There's another $100,000,000 to account for.

That's still $325,000 apiece for every lowly opposition backbencher, and noname who lives in the shadow of the parliament buildings to explain.

Considering that many of them couldn't possibly use that much money, that means quite a few are spending a lot more than that.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Molly

[Molly]

And... if they'd just get out of the way and let the Auditor General- whose job it is to check out such things- do her job and look it over, then we'd all know whether it was justifiable spending or not.... now wouldn't we?

Seems to me that anyone interested in accountability, and with nothing to hide, should just be happy to hand over the books without hesitation, any time she was inclined to ask for them.

[Alta4ever]

Scott Brision today was in BC for a "Liberal celebrity cook off" that is on the other side of the country from his ridding. Did my tax dollars pay for that?

Don't know but I wouldn't speculate.

[Alta4ever]

And... if they'd just get out of the way and let the Auditor General- whose job it is to check out such things- do her job and look it over, then we'd all know whether it was justifiable spending or not.... now wouldn't we?

Seems to me that anyone interested in accountability, and with nothing to hide, should just be happy to hand over the books without hesitation, any time she was inclined to ask for them.

Is the Prime Minsiters Expenses included in that? Hi s security detail is quite expensive.

[punked]

Don't know but I wouldn't speculate.

So maybe we should let the AG look into right?

[Alta4ever]

So maybe we should let the AG look into right?

Their are multitudes of other things that I would rather have her look into first. the CWB, all the crown corps, expecially the CBC. How the provinces are spending transfer payments, ect. I would have her look at the mps expenses but it is a drop in the bucket compaired to a lot of other government programs.

[Molly]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

I'd say the lady has proved herself capable of setting appropriate priorities.

Besides... if it's a small item on the list, and the principals co-operate fully, then it'll take no time at all, and then she can move on quickly to address your priorities, instead of having her time and efforts wasted trying to get her hands on the books she thinks need a peek.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Molly