Rayyan @44: “And aren’t the German government on their way to doing just this?”

Alas, not. The German government heavily subsides local energy production but that does not provide the massive quantities that are required for an industrial society (and we are not post industrial). Those subsidies may encourage technological development which reduces costs, but I suspect that it is a blind alley.

“It might be about decentralisation…”

It has nothing to do with decentralisation — the subsidies come from central government. Whilst energy is generated locally, there are currently no efficiencies of scale.

“,,,but someone has to push for that decentralisation and make sure it works – I can’t see that being left to a multitude of profit-maximising private interests.”

If governments subsidise inefficient renewable energy, inefficient renewable energy will be produced. In Germany “green politics” currently delivers your “multitude of profit-maximising private interests”. Governments need to create programmes that provide efficient and reliable energy. Local production has its place, but you need big schemes to fuel a steel plant or aluminium smelter. And why can’t they make a profit, irrespective of ownership?

Returning to the original thread… I expect MPs to earn their money and to learn about complex things like energy production or supply/demand economics (doh). MPs are given a research allowance in order to understand difficult topics, but isn’t that the wrong way round?

Surely parties should pick analytical people (physicists, engineers, geologists, mathematicians, economists etc) and give them a quick education in “easy subjects”, such as sociology and law?

4. The idea that any government can bring in a value for money and technically effective train system is laughable.

Isn’t that what the French and German governments have done though?

5. The idea that any government can bring in a sustainable and cost effective energy system is laughable.

And aren’t the German government on their way to doing just this? It might be about decentralisation, but someone has to push for that decentralisation and make sure it works – I can’t see that being left to a multitude of profit-maximising private interests.

1. Anyone who knew anything about Jugoslavia wouyld have realised Slovenia and Croatia leaving the federation would lead to civil war due to the various feuds dating from WW2, if ot before.
2.Anyone who knew anything about Iraq and Afghanistan would have been aware of the problems of reconstruction.
3. Anyone who knew anything about fishing would know the EU Common Fisheries Policy s a disaster, especially for the UK.
4. The idea that any government can bring in a value for money and technically effective train system is laughable.
5. The idea that any government can bring in a sustainable and cost effective energy system is laughable.

Why , because the H of C lack people with any experience of the massive problems. MPs are like pillows , whoever lent on them last leaves the impression. Unless one has a certain wisdom based upon experience it is very difficult to obtain the correct advice because it is impossible to ask the right questions and sift the conflicting information. Anyone who has run a successful project appreciates that all sorts of problems which have to be overcome. The most important is to obtain a correct specification for what is to be achieved. Many government contracts do not even get this right.

A cabinet minister, who is broadly more accountable and has to actually stand up for their decisions and, when necessary, step down or be fired from that position of power, makes almost £150k a year before expenses and allowances. And even then their accountability is not as direct as those of people sitting on a board or high level managers as they can hide behind policy direction, manifestos, and “secret information”.

This is, to my knowledge, really not all that different from board of director level salaries on average. This is why I can’t understand why there is any call whatsoever for any of them to be paid more.

This isn’t the same as accountability, by a long shot.

30. By no means do I believe that ours is a meritocratic society, if that is the delusional ‘bubble’ that you refer. The best paid are not always the best at their jobs.

However, the idea that you can pay MPs less and expect them not to be seduced by outside influences is far-fetched. The idea that you pay MPs less to attract the best candidates is ludicrous.

I am not in favour of inequality for inequality’s sake; the justification for the inequality of higher wages for MPs is greater efficiency.

31 I agree with your points (please excuse me if I misrepresent them). I agree that our system has too many MPs – too many which are too easily disciplined by the party and are feckless lobby fodder (e.g. Hazel Blears). I agree that professors are undervalued and underpaid, less than primary school teachers if I’m not mistaken.

33. I wasn’t suggesting that MPs salaries are average. My point was in response to the original post. The point being that highlighting the relationship with average salaries is of little value when looked at in isolation. 31 Charlieman – makes a comparison to professors. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. Even if you look within the public sector, the prime minister is paid considerably less that some civil servants.

As for 37.
Our system is a democracy, elected aristocracy perhaps, but elected nonetheless. If you don’t like you local politician, don’t vote for him/her. It is up to the public to discipline their representatives at the ballot box.

Thank-you for your responses

At the very least they would have to stand before a board of inquiry to discover what went wrong.

Which is balanced by the fact they have little personal responsibility, by comparison, and don’t need to know a single thing about what they’re voting on before doing so. If a policy goes wrong the back benchers who voted for it don’t get disciplined, they don’t get asked to explain their decision so that the “business” (the state) can learn for next time. Those that do are ministers in government, and they’re paid considerably more for that privilege of being somewhat more accountable.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-01528.pdf

Plenty of groups overrepresented, including business so its hard to see how that is lacking. Doctors are probably proportionally represented. Hard to say with scientists as they are not broken down, could be white collar or academia and I also have no clue how many there are.

Though I don’t expect the argument that we need this or that expert group to be represented personally in parliament anyway, as if a job means holding to certain political views. We just need a parliament that can effectivly engage with a wide range of groups and examine expert knowledge.

I suspect there are far too many lawyers and too few accountants.

The Naïveté expressed in this post and by the comments disappoints me; MPs should be paid more not less. What is the point of looking at average wages? Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

An MPs wages are not average, no where near average! Your point is, in fact, pointless!

If you are an MP you earn 3 times, 3 frigging times what is the median wage – and that, as so many know and have said is’nt the real picture.

They get, certainly not earn, almost 6 times what so many have to live on – and don’t even get me started on what those godaweful benefit scroungers live on.

Vince’s job at Shell was no doubt an education for him. However, I would argue that he is fortunate about his seat. If he were in a marginal, it would be much more difficult for him to spend so much time on national politics.

HoC comprises 646 MPs, most of whom are effectively chosen by their local party to represent a safe or winnable seat. HoC is not an elite club, because elite skills are not required to win the seat. Possibly elite skills are required to get onto the short list, but elite skills are definitely required if you are going to win as an outsider.

When elected, an MP will earn a similar salary to a junior UK professor. To get the job as professor, you have to earn the respect of (intelligent, probing, resentful) colleagues based on 15+ years of research; a parliamentary candidate can get a job based on 15+ minutes of bull.

Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

What a load of rubbish! So the richest MPs are the most “exceptional”? MPs getting paid a salary almost 3 times the national median wage has led to them being 3 times as effective as everyone else, 3 times as in touch with the country?

You’re living in a bubble.

Someone like Vince Cable, you mean?”

I’m a Vince fan, but…

Over thirty years, Twickenham Lib Dems converted a winnable seat into a massive majority. Vince personally wins Tory votes in what is demographically a Tory/LD marginal seat. Vince has a strong local party who will handle case work for him; his tech support should not be underestimated. Vince and his wife were both wealthy before they married or he became elected. Vince no doubt earns a decent screw from his pieces in the Daily Mail.

Few parliamentary candidates have Vince’s circumstances — with credit to Vince for the ones he has created for himself. And remember that Vince spent several years in parliament before his abilities were widely recognised.

The Naïveté expressed in this post and by the comments disappoints me; MPs should be paid more not less. What is the point of looking at average wages? Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

MPs are paid meagre salaries compared to the elite of most professions. Higher pay would lessen the incentive for outside influences. It would attract more and better people. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. MPs should be paid more; we should understand and except that.

Um, and? If they can’t bear to take a paycut- and if it starts from 70K its not even a big one- to take up such a position, then we will have to do without. I don’t know why you assume most engineers would be big fans of green tech anyway or government investment in manufacturing- the ones I know aren’t, though they also aren’t earning 70K.

Ultimately MP’s earn enough to live a fine lifestyle. Its not right to try to gerrymander the salary system to attract this or that individuals idea of who should be standing. I’m sure many would say the bigger issue is that its so unrepresantativly upper and middle class. I’m not especially sold on either argument but I am sold on not giving everyone big pay increases in the hopes of attracting a couple of engineers.

The house of commons does have several doctors and engineers already. You think it has too few but thats an opinion, and hardly a basis for a salary review. I suspect that they may tend to just be less politically active, not put off by low salaries.

There are a number of ex-traders and people from other professions already in the house of commons. I don’t see that we have some obligation to keep people in the manner to which they are accustomed like some divorcee. If people who are already wealthy want to run for the house of commons they are free to, but theres no obligation to throw money at them so that they don’t lose anything to gain what is a real privilege. There will always be a higher salary you can claim we want the competence from- thats no justification for an endless spiral.