David Cameron plans big cuts in ministers pay if Tories win election | Politics | The Guardian .
Democracy is not just about access to voting, it's also about having the right candidates to vote for.
The Conservatives are already planning to cut the number of parliamentary seats, first to deny choice (which seems starngely at odds with their beleif in this particular agenda) and secondly to deny Labour seats (which is simply corrupt) and now they announce they want to cut ministerial pay.
One could say politics is a vocation. Let's be honest, no one pays me to write this blog. But there's also not a shadow of doubt that we want the best people in parliament and as ministers and candidly if the government thinks top civil servants are worth more than £125,000 a year then so are top ministers.
No, I'm not asking for a pay free-for all. I don't see why anyone on the public payroll need earn more than £200,000 a year - and few should reach that height, but cutting pay for ministers is a clear sign of what Cameron wants - a parliament of old Etonians with private incomes and lobby fodder of young political geeks who will do as they're told.
After all, at 27 (as the newest Tory MP is) an MP's pay is in the stratosphere. For a head teacher, GP, or senior manager MP's pay excludes them from office if they also have family commitments that have been assumed at their previous reward level.
I want good people in parliament. It's clear the Tories do not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“The Conservatives are already planning to cut the number of parliamentary seats… to deny Labour seats (which is simply corrupt).”
Naughty, Mr Murphy. Very naughty.
You know as well as I do that it is in fact the present constituency boundaries that are corrupt, giving Labour a vast electoral advantage over the Conservatives. Constituency sizes vary enormously in the United Kingdom, with only one constant to the pattern – delivering additional seats to Labour and denying seats to their opponents. Indeed, entering a vote share of 35% for each major party into some electoral forecasting software indicates that this would give Labour 330 seats and the Conservatives 239 – an overall Labour majority of 10. Perhaps you could explain to me why you consider this a fair system, and why Cameron should not seek to create a level playing field for the first time in several decades?
As for his pay cut, I think your suggestion that he wishes to create a Parliament of indifferent Etonians is rather far-fetched. Surely this is just a rather cheap and pointless gimmick to indicate that MPs are sharing a little of the country’s pain whilst his government makes cutbacks elsewhere?
Richard,
You say it is corrupt to try to reduce the number of parliamentary seats “to deny Labour seats”. Do you not think it is profoundly undemocratic to have a system whereby urban seats have a much smaller number of voters than urban seats, with the result that Labour has about 10% more seats than the Tories? Or whereby Labour retains power through its rump of Welsh and Scottish MPs who vote on matters that do not affect them?
Or is is that things are only undemocratic when it is the socialist party that suffers?
You appear to be mixing up issues of ministers and issues of MPs generally. An MP has already accepted a salary of circa £65k + allowances by becoming MP. Changing the additional ministerial pay shouldn’t of itself reduce the supply of suitably talented people, as ministers in any event shouldn’t assume they are only going to be in parliament if they are ministers, nor should they assume they will be ministers for ever.
Candidly, the best do not go in to be back benchers
Even if they often are, because they are the best
Not naughty at all
First of all the system is designed to ensure that England does not dominate the United Kingdoms – and rightly so
Second it reflects as I understand it anticipated workload
Is it perfect? No. Is it better than having a system where a minority of English conservatives always rules. Oh yes. That would lead to break up of the Union for a start.
A so called democratic system that destroys the state would not be of much use – as wiser figures than me clearly appreciated when they set this system up
That’s why Cameron’s obvious lack of wisdom is dangerous
Was Pitt the Younger being “simply corrupt” when he overhauled the seats and erradicated Rotton Boroughs? hypocritical yes, corrupt no.
Electorial systems need updating as populations move.
Reform by all means
But since when did that require cutting the number of seats?
Has the work load fallen?
The population fallen?
Has any borough proved rotten?
No?
The This is not reform – this is abuse
“First of all the system is designed to ensure that England does not dominate the United Kingdoms – and rightly so.”
Why rightly so? Why should people exert more influence on the democratic process simply by dint of living in Wales or Scotland rather than England? Indeed, why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on purely English matters at all, given that English MPs cannot now do the reverse? The only reason this situation has been allowed to obtain is that several senior Cabinet positions are filled by Scots, and that Labour traditionally does well in Scotland. This is the real abuse of democracy, and Cameron is right to address it.
“Second it reflects as I understand it anticipated workload.”
This is true, and as I understand it, this argument is not bogus. However, it could be addressed differently: by equalising constituency sizes (in terms of numbers of voters), but allocating greater resources to inner city MPs to employ additional researchers and staff. That, I suggest, would be the truly politically neutral solution,
I would prefer to have MPs who do NOT come from elite echelons, and who are more in touch with the realities of the lives of ordinary (as in living on much lower incomes) people.
Why would we need such out of touch people making decisions on our lives?
Is it because people with less incomes are losers and couldnt manage the job?
You say that you do this blog work unpaid. It is likely that much of the most socially useful work is being done unpaid or at a low rate,
by people who have priorities that are not £ me £ me.
NB bankers – high pay, socially useless and destructive, with clearly the wrong priorities to benefit anyone but themselves, to the detriment of others. Simplistic perhaps, but what does this suggest about pay/usefulness correlation?
“Has the work load fallen?”
Err, yes. You’ll have noted that some power to legislate has been handed up to the EU, some down to the devolved administrations.
Tim
When was the last time you actually engaged with a real, hard working politician who took their responsibilities seriously? Someone other than a Tory, UKIP or BNP one in other words?
Richard
Well, I think this little news story has shown your true colours Richard. You may believe you are interested in justice and democracy, but let me tell you, justice and democracy are methods. They are an approach to life that means that sometimes you do not like the result but you have to accept it.
You do not believe in democracy or justice. Your beliefs are in a political system: a large public service, most services (utilities, transport, banks, education, health etc) being provided by the state and a disproportionate amount of power given to those who disproportionately share your beliefs (the Scottish and Irish). That is fine, but if you do not believe in the democratic system (one person, one vote, all equal – and none of this some being more equal than others jiggery-pokery) then at least have the guts to admit it.
If the Tories get in – which they almost certainly will – it will be precisely because people trust them more than the opposition. You may not, but the price of democracy is accepting that the view of others is as valid as your own.
Dave Cameron just wants to substitute the current system – which is rigged in favour of the Labour Party – with a variant which is rigged in favour of the Conservative Party. If he was really ‘progressive’ he’d introduce a voting system based on proportional representation, which is the only way to ensure that all votes count. First Past the Post is an idiotic electoral system.
Howard, FPTP is not idiotic if you want a comprehensive set of policies which you can vote for. Mixing and matching post election is not ideal.
Should have explained, I’m really talking about economic policy. Of course it would be good if any of the parties’ policies were economically literate.
The satellite station G.O.L.D is currently playing reruns of the brilliant 1980s comedy: Yes, Prime Minister. One episode I watched recently focused on an imminent rise in civil servants’ pay and that of MPs’ too. Hard to believe that much has changed in the last 25 years.
[…] reaction to my blog entitled ‘Dangerously anti-democratic’ has been interesting. It’s clear neither left or right can agree on how parliamentary seats […]
[…] reaction to my blog entitled ‘Dangerously anti-democratic’ has been interesting. It’s clear neither left or right can agree on how parliamentary seats […]