2. If the power center is decentralized, does that mean that we need a return to autocratic rule, or at the very least a small clique rule ala China, for UK to be more effective? America had Washington, Lincolin, and FDR.
You ignore the role of the press with it's extremely intrusive and abusive behaviour. who would want to be a lowly MP or Minister given the behaviour of the press? Any private conversation can be published and taken out of context to encourage a lynch mob mentality. I manage teams of programmers and one fo the first things I do is to ensure an atmosphere where people feel they can speak and make mistakes in a safe atmosphere that won't immediately lynch them for being wrong or out of turn. Ministers are expected to have the answer immediately and accurately or the mob is stirred by the press and other politicians. In every other profession this is not the case - it is understood people have to analyse and investigate, they have to learn and mistakes will be made.
Of course politicians are their own worst enemies - they lead the lynch mobs and use the press to stir them up.
I believe MPs should have double the salary, better expenses and allowances. But there should be far fewer of them - 400 max in the HoC. No amount of salary increase will bring in a senior FTSE director for the simple reason they have to go to the bottom of the political heap and then work themselves up the greasy pole. Double ministerial salaries too.
Another problem is that increasingly the government is a dictatorship with MPs required to tow the line if they want preferment (which they all do). As a case in point I know MPs who were set to vote against the recent IR35 proposals from the government. They were gently reminded that if they wanted to progress their 'careers', then offending the PM and Chancellor was not advisable. They all changed their minds. parliament is designed to hold Ministers to account, but in the febrile partisan atmosphere that prevails and given those in the government parties are disciplined to stay onside, it cannot do this. And in that atmosphere what competent person wants to be an MP?
Increasingly politics has become professionalized over the last 5 decades and is now also very middle-class dominated (this suggests salary is not much of an issue). even as long ago as 1979 I knew a guy at UNi who was going to go into politics with a view to building contacts that would allow him to leave and make wealth outside politics. Many current politicians do this - ex Pms become very wealthy on the talk circuit.
There is a lack of ideology in the Tory party mow - it wants power because it wants power, not for any particular reason. Anyone going into politics usually wants to do some good, but without an ideological framework is it with the effort?
So, I think better salaries would be no bad thing but I don't it will make much difference.
1. There is no shortage of applicants for any of the job roles mentioned in this article. Prestigious jobs don't to need a big salary, they offer something else; money is not the only reward.
2. Since when does paying more attract the best. Anyone with experience in this area knows it does not. It's such a dangerous assumption.
3. How about employing qualified people? Why do we want a PPE graduate running the health system? Our politicians don't need bigger salaries, they need appropriate qualifications. OneWeb.
1) Hard to know if there's a shortage or not, given the way parties control the selection process. Given your comments on "PPE", I think we'd both agree the best people aren't going for political jobs, so the question is how to improve them. I agree prestigious jobs don't need a big salary, but my argument above is that the prestige and experience of being an MP has dropped significantly, so we need to increase wages to mitigate that
2) It's not perfect, but there's a decent correlation between IQ and income. Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't people who are overpaid and untalented on an individual level
3) Im afraid you've been qualification pilled. What we need is the smartest people in charge. In any event, your argument falls at the first hurdle- why would the leader of a FTSE 100 or a top NHS consultant become an MP currently?
R.e point 3. I regret writing "qualified." It was ambiguous and didn't accurately reflect my thinking. I should have put "experienced." I agree we need the smartest people and relevant experience is also crucial.
Overall I agree with the article; the pay is too low and we need to attract the best. The jobs themselves certainty need to be less tedious.
Great article! Perhaps it is time to look at the workload of politicians too? For example, if every council and public authority had an ombudsperson, then surely that should much reduce the "worthy casework"?
I should probably add that I'm a local authority manager in Wales. So as to councillors, I think the issue is that there are far too few - esp. being a councillor on a large unitary authority is lots of work and responsibility! All the other big European countries have usually 3 tiers of administration under the national government and way more councillors, so the individual workload is much less. In fact most municipal councils on the continent meet in the (early) evening, so the job can be done (and is expected to be done) after work. Most UK council meetings are during the day, which clashes with jobs.
No, all you'll end up with is the same councillors and politicians, just higher paid than now. People don't (by and large) end up in politics because of the money, it attracts certain psychological types of people (and repels others). Sadly the ones we would want running things are in the latter group and the ones we need to keep away from anything more important than a whelk stall are in the former.
There is only one step that can be taken to break this depressing circle of narcissism and mediocrity, and that is to stop the young entering politics. Set a minimum age to be a councillor or MP. That will prevent the 'wrong' sort of person thinking they can make politics their career. Make them go out into the world, have reality knock the corners off, give them some hard lessons in what life is about, give them some perspective. Then when they have had kids and made their way in a career for 30 years, maybe they might be suitably prepared to be in charge of the country. Too many politicians have known nothing other than politics all their life. This must end - we need to be governed by people who have experienced real life, not the magic carpet from school to uni to think tank to Spad to MP.
Questions regarding
1. Could it be that politicians are mere shells of control, and not control itself, akin to crosswalk buttons? Is it more likely that civil servants and press controls the MP? (see also https://graymirror.substack.com/p/3-descriptive-constitution-of-the?s=r and Yes Minister 101)
2. If the power center is decentralized, does that mean that we need a return to autocratic rule, or at the very least a small clique rule ala China, for UK to be more effective? America had Washington, Lincolin, and FDR.
You ignore the role of the press with it's extremely intrusive and abusive behaviour. who would want to be a lowly MP or Minister given the behaviour of the press? Any private conversation can be published and taken out of context to encourage a lynch mob mentality. I manage teams of programmers and one fo the first things I do is to ensure an atmosphere where people feel they can speak and make mistakes in a safe atmosphere that won't immediately lynch them for being wrong or out of turn. Ministers are expected to have the answer immediately and accurately or the mob is stirred by the press and other politicians. In every other profession this is not the case - it is understood people have to analyse and investigate, they have to learn and mistakes will be made.
Of course politicians are their own worst enemies - they lead the lynch mobs and use the press to stir them up.
I believe MPs should have double the salary, better expenses and allowances. But there should be far fewer of them - 400 max in the HoC. No amount of salary increase will bring in a senior FTSE director for the simple reason they have to go to the bottom of the political heap and then work themselves up the greasy pole. Double ministerial salaries too.
Another problem is that increasingly the government is a dictatorship with MPs required to tow the line if they want preferment (which they all do). As a case in point I know MPs who were set to vote against the recent IR35 proposals from the government. They were gently reminded that if they wanted to progress their 'careers', then offending the PM and Chancellor was not advisable. They all changed their minds. parliament is designed to hold Ministers to account, but in the febrile partisan atmosphere that prevails and given those in the government parties are disciplined to stay onside, it cannot do this. And in that atmosphere what competent person wants to be an MP?
Increasingly politics has become professionalized over the last 5 decades and is now also very middle-class dominated (this suggests salary is not much of an issue). even as long ago as 1979 I knew a guy at UNi who was going to go into politics with a view to building contacts that would allow him to leave and make wealth outside politics. Many current politicians do this - ex Pms become very wealthy on the talk circuit.
There is a lack of ideology in the Tory party mow - it wants power because it wants power, not for any particular reason. Anyone going into politics usually wants to do some good, but without an ideological framework is it with the effort?
So, I think better salaries would be no bad thing but I don't it will make much difference.
1. There is no shortage of applicants for any of the job roles mentioned in this article. Prestigious jobs don't to need a big salary, they offer something else; money is not the only reward.
2. Since when does paying more attract the best. Anyone with experience in this area knows it does not. It's such a dangerous assumption.
3. How about employing qualified people? Why do we want a PPE graduate running the health system? Our politicians don't need bigger salaries, they need appropriate qualifications. OneWeb.
1) Hard to know if there's a shortage or not, given the way parties control the selection process. Given your comments on "PPE", I think we'd both agree the best people aren't going for political jobs, so the question is how to improve them. I agree prestigious jobs don't need a big salary, but my argument above is that the prestige and experience of being an MP has dropped significantly, so we need to increase wages to mitigate that
2) It's not perfect, but there's a decent correlation between IQ and income. Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't people who are overpaid and untalented on an individual level
3) Im afraid you've been qualification pilled. What we need is the smartest people in charge. In any event, your argument falls at the first hurdle- why would the leader of a FTSE 100 or a top NHS consultant become an MP currently?
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Thanks for responding.
R.e point 3. I regret writing "qualified." It was ambiguous and didn't accurately reflect my thinking. I should have put "experienced." I agree we need the smartest people and relevant experience is also crucial.
Overall I agree with the article; the pay is too low and we need to attract the best. The jobs themselves certainty need to be less tedious.
Totally agree!
Great article! Perhaps it is time to look at the workload of politicians too? For example, if every council and public authority had an ombudsperson, then surely that should much reduce the "worthy casework"?
I should probably add that I'm a local authority manager in Wales. So as to councillors, I think the issue is that there are far too few - esp. being a councillor on a large unitary authority is lots of work and responsibility! All the other big European countries have usually 3 tiers of administration under the national government and way more councillors, so the individual workload is much less. In fact most municipal councils on the continent meet in the (early) evening, so the job can be done (and is expected to be done) after work. Most UK council meetings are during the day, which clashes with jobs.
I'd add that you also need proportional representation for councils to make things a bit a bit more competitive...
Thanks for your comment. On PR for LA's, its something I've come round to recently, definitely
Simple cut the pay of the 667 leeching bastards on the local authorities and why the hell should i have to subsidise Johnsons philanderings.
Thanks for reading marc!
No, all you'll end up with is the same councillors and politicians, just higher paid than now. People don't (by and large) end up in politics because of the money, it attracts certain psychological types of people (and repels others). Sadly the ones we would want running things are in the latter group and the ones we need to keep away from anything more important than a whelk stall are in the former.
There is only one step that can be taken to break this depressing circle of narcissism and mediocrity, and that is to stop the young entering politics. Set a minimum age to be a councillor or MP. That will prevent the 'wrong' sort of person thinking they can make politics their career. Make them go out into the world, have reality knock the corners off, give them some hard lessons in what life is about, give them some perspective. Then when they have had kids and made their way in a career for 30 years, maybe they might be suitably prepared to be in charge of the country. Too many politicians have known nothing other than politics all their life. This must end - we need to be governed by people who have experienced real life, not the magic carpet from school to uni to think tank to Spad to MP.
Sorry to disagree, but thanks for stopping by!