Why do MP's make so much?

[someone]

I think that it would be interesting to see if more money does attract more qualified people into office. This should be a testable hypothesis. E.g. find the salaries of politicians in different jurisdictions, relative to some measure of average pay and compare this to their “qualifications”. I guess that how you measure qualifications would be subjective (e.g. formal educational qualifications, experiences in the private sector, etc.) but in principle, it should be possible to get a general idea of whether higher salaries attack better people.

My suspicion is that money is not a prime motivator for people getting into politics. Instead, I suspect it has to do with personal egos. Still, without evidence, who can say?

Also, even if money is a motivator, I’m not sure it is a good thing, as it can lead to career politicians which, I’m not sure is good. In my own line of work, I have noticed that the universities that are worse managed are those with a high proportion of “career administrators”. E.g. those who have choose a career path going from one administrative position to another (in universities, once a administrative term is up, administrators typically either have to go back to the department their academic training affiliates themselves with, or go on to another administrative position either at the same insitution or another one). In the case of politicians, I suspect that the same is true. If an important issue comes up, I would rather have a politician basing his position on what he thinks is right and not what will secure his employment. Paying them a bit less than what they would get in the private sector may be a way of reducing the opportunity cost to them of taking a principled stand.

 

[clubber]

Yes. I believe most get into politics with the intention of serving their country. Unfortunately special interests and lobbyists have an influence that can lead to corruption.

I'm more concerned with regulating the impact of lobbyists and Senate reform than how much MP's are currently paid. This is why I support Harper's agenda related to government accountability.

Harper seems to have watered down somewhat Preston Mannings ideas. The Triple E senate was a good idea. I also liked the idea of no senate. If we could get rid of or limit the impact of lobbyists that would be so good. Some of Harper's ideas in this are pretty decent, but so far the follow through has not been there. Like all politicians a lot of promises, and they only seen to act on the ones you don't want them to.

 

[clubber]

I think that it would be interesting to see if more money does attract more qualified people into office. This should be a testable hypothesis. E.g. find the salaries of politicians in different jurisdictions, relative to some measure of average pay and compare this to their “qualifications”. I guess that how you measure qualifications would be subjective (e.g. formal educational qualifications, experiences in the private sector, etc.) but in principle, it should be possible to get a general idea of whether higher salaries attack better people.

My suspicion is that money is not a prime motivator for people getting into politics. Instead, I suspect it has to do with personal egos. Still, without evidence, who can say?

Also, even if money is a motivator, I’m not sure it is a good thing, as it can lead to career politicians which, I’m not sure is good. In my own line of work, I have noticed that the universities that are worse managed are those with a high proportion of “career administrators”. E.g. those who have choose a career path going from one administrative position to another (in universities, once a administrative term is up, administrators typically either have to go back to the department their academic training affiliates themselves with, or go on to another administrative position either at the same insitution or another one). In the case of politicians, I suspect that the same is true. If an important issue comes up, I would rather have a politician basing his position on what he thinks is right and not what will secure his employment. Paying them a bit less than what they would get in the private sector may be a way of reducing the opportunity cost to them of taking a principled
stand.

I would think the ego factor a huge part of why they are there. Every PM that has been in power since I can remember has had a huge ego. The ultimate Alpha male the leader of your country.

The problem with a politician that does what he thinks is right over what will secure his job is they tend not to last, or even get power. One has to appease the masses to get their votes. One issue they do vote on what they think is right is their wages. They set their own wages and benefits. Here they vote for what they think is right, for themselves. I doubt that few will vote to give themselves a pay decrease. I remember the Reform at first had many of their people opt out of a few benefits. That slowly but surely changed.

 

[Never Compromised]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ea318a9c-4e24-4556-847e-2c162a7f1d36

I don't understand why MP's make so much. The base salary is $150,800. For that amount of money a person should be highly skilled doing technical things that most people don't have the ability to do. Can't we just hire smart university students at a third of the salary so that we don't have to have all these pigs feeding at the trough? I am so against welfare for the rich.

Why can't we have forced turnover? Every year of public service has to be matched with a year of work in the private sector. The salary that a MP makes then can not exceed a hundred and ten percent of their salary that they received in the private sector going back to their last year of work in the private sector adjusted for inflation.

Believe me, most Members of Parliament, and the vast majority of the political staff, take a pay cut to "serve the public interest". And there are damn few people in the public sector that have to work as long, as hard and take as much abuse as members and political staff.

Paul Martin was the President of a shipping company, do you really think he got a pay raise to become PM? Or Brian Mulroney, president of a steel company?

And you seem to be confusing the public sector (the civil service) with the political sector.

I have no doubt that are are simply ignorant of the realities of our political system, or you would not be making such silly statements.

 

[Never Compromised]

I don't think these salaries are out of line when compared to other countries politicians. What is out of line is the gold plated pensions these guys get - there needs to be major reform in that area.

While I agree that the pensions should only kick in when a (former) MP turns 65, I hardly think that the pension should be considered gold plated.

 

[Never Compromised]

You aren't trying to do that since their jobs aren't that hard to do.

A politician's job is not difficult? Man, you really have no idea, do you?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Harper seems to have watered down somewhat Preston Mannings ideas. The Triple E senate was a good idea. I also liked the idea of no senate. If we could get rid of or limit the impact of lobbyists that would be so good. Some of Harper's ideas in this are pretty decent, but so far the follow through has not been there. Like all politicians a lot of promises, and they only seen to act on the ones you don't want them to.

I agree but, to be fair, Harper is running a minority government (quite well BTW) so he doesn't have a mandate for sweeping reform.

Also, he made a stab at substantial Senate reform but it was stalled in............wait for it.............The Senate.

Go figure.

 

[TQM]

hum dee dum dum,

Why do MP's get paid so much? The answer is they don't. They don't get paid enough. But let's review a few small points, shall we?

A lawyer is still a lawyer, even if he/she has no clients. A politician isn't a politician if he's not elected.

It's exceptionally difficult to recruit people to run for your party. You simply have no idea how particularly difficult it is. Naturally, you want the best of the best to run - but the best of the best generally make a lot of money, have tremendous job security, don't have to put up with intense media scrutiny, and generally, the best of the best get to call their own shots - they aren't just one voice on a team.

The best of the best don't want to take the risk of seeking a nomination, don't want the risk of contesting a riding, don't want the risk of possibly serving in opposition, and certainly don't want the risk of being on the back benches.

The best of the best simply aren't going to come cheap.

Then, suppose you get a few of the best of the best, and they all want one portfolio - Foreign Affairs. None want Defence. Most don't want Native Affairs. Trade is a good second choice.

Then - you have to face re-election and re-election again. There's no security in it.


Examples? Bill Graham - former Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Minister of Defence, former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

His credentials are peerless. Nobody alive in politics in Canada has his credentials.

His earnings before politics were more than double, probably more than triple what he earned as a politician.

Now someone asked "why do we need someone with great credentials?" Usually the people who ask this question are the same people who are first to criticize a politician for a stupid mistake. How can you say we don't need the best with one breath and then criticize someone for not being the best with the next? Really, it's an intensely stupid question.

Debating lawyer's median salaries is also pretty stupid. We don't want average lawyers - we want to be saved from average lawyers. Duh.

So sure - Harper has had thin pickings for cabinet. For over a decade the stars went Liberal. Harper even had to raid the Liberal benches for a Trade Minister.

That may or may not change next election. Stars like safe bets. Nothing is safe right now. Meanwhile, the non-stars are itching to take their chances. Such is life in politics.

 

[clubber]

I agree but, to be fair, Harper is running a minority government (quite well BTW) so he doesn't have a mandate for sweeping reform.

Also, he made a stab at substantial Senate reform but it was stalled in............wait for it.............The Senate.

Go figure.

Pierre Trudeau used a minority with the NDP to bring in quite a bit. He tended to blame the NDP if things did not go great, and took the credit when things went well. Pearson also had two with the NDP that is suppose to have went over well.

What was his senate reform, bringing an unelected senator in as a minister? He could have had senate reform if he had worked with the NDP, and or the Bloc. The only real good thing he has managed is getting a little tougher on crime. I know the NDP is very open to senate reform, or just getting rid of them.

I just googled Harper's govenment accomplishments. Wow speech after speech of very little. Now he is trying to claim the 13 billion dollars as his accomplishment. That is downright shameful. No government in the history of Canada has ever walked into a better fiscal situation. All his tax cutting, I have not seen any yet. I doubt any working people have.

 

[solitaria]

Believe me, most Members of Parliament, and the vast majority of the political staff, take a pay cut to "serve the public interest".

Do you have any stats to back that up? I already showed that the median salary for a lawyer with 20+ years of experience is significantly less than the BASE salary of the MPs. You seem to be talking out of your ass.

Paul Martin was the President of a shipping company, do you really think he got a pay raise to become PM? Or Brian Mulroney, president of a steel company?

I am talking about the average MP whom is making 150K base salary. The average MP is not a President of a shipping or steel company and a self-made millionaire in the private sector. Obviously people like Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney don't need the money and their motivating factor is the power that comes from the PM position.

 

[solitaria]

A politician's job is not difficult? Man, you really have no idea, do you?

Come on it is not as if they are doing engineering or surgery or are absolutely gifted in something like music. They are professional ass kissers and administration workers. Their jobs are not technically difficult by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[solitaria]

Examples? Bill Graham - former Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Minister of Defence, former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

His credentials are peerless. Nobody alive in politics in Canada has his credentials.

His earnings before politics were more than double, probably more than triple what he earned as a politician.

You jest.

I read his bio and it says he was a law professor at the University of Toronto.

A minister in 2007 makes $225K with perks and the law professor at UoT in 2001 (the latest year I could find) made $169K without the same perks. Inflation doesn't nearly cover that gap.

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utstaff/2001/salary2001v-w.html

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

What was his senate reform, bringing an unelected senator in as a minister? He could have had senate reform if he had worked with the NDP, and or the Bloc. The only real good thing he has managed is getting a little tougher on crime. I know the NDP is very open to senate reform, or just getting rid of them.

Shortly after gaining power Harper introduced Senate reform which included term limits. This, along with other reforms were stalled in the Senate.

What a joke. The senate should be abolished, it serves no purpose other than a reward for political hacks.

Solitaria is all wound up over MP's earning $150K a year, at least they work for their pay. The Senate, now that is another story and a collosal waste of money.

 

[danmand]

Shortly after gaining power Harper introduced Senate reform which included term limits. This, along with other reforms were stalled in the Senate.

What a joke. The senate should be abolished, it serves no purpose other than a reward for political hacks.

Solitaria is all wound up over MP's earning $150K a year, at least they work for their pay. The Senate, now that is another story and a collosal waste of money.

Denmark abolished the upper chamber in 1953. Time for canada to do the same. At the same time, get rid of the queen.

 

[trisket]

Denmark loves their queen even more than we do.

 

[TQM]

solitaria

I already mentioned Bill Graham was also, aside from holding not just any position at the faculty, but a special chair, was also a well regarded international arbitrator, working often out of The Hague.

But aside from that he also served on the board of directors of many large companies, chief amongst them was Scott's Hospitality (he was the single largest individual shareholder of the company) - where he served as Chairman of the Board for years - until he resigned just before his election in 1993. These positions added to his earnings handsomely.

The Law Faculty at U of T, has now opened a special chair for International Trade, named after him. Less than .001% of lawyers in Canada get such an honour. His text on International Trade Law was the standard at law schools across the nation for more than a decade.

France honoured him with the chevalier of the Legion of Honour - the first English Canadian to be so honoured.

He is of course fully bilingual. But his commitment to his work was unparalleled. Before becoming Foreign Affairs Minister he took his holiday time in Mexico, to learn Spanish, in anticipation of the job that he was uniquely qualified for.

He was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs by Jean Chretien - this in spite of the common knowledge that Graham was personal friends with Paul Martin. He is probably the only appointment that received some applause from all 3 other opposition parties, ever. His refusal to play politics at the committee levels, and his willingness to take input from all members, regardless of their party affiliation, earned him many friends and admirers of all political stripes.

I think you need to find some better biographical sources, little one.

 

[solitaria]

I think you need to find some better biographical sources, little one.

It's ironic to call someone "little one" when name calling is such a petty emotional reaction. Perhaps the irony will be lost on you since you probably think it makes you sound intelligent and superior.

The biographical source I was using is his website.

http://www.votebillgraham.ca/bio.html

I couldn't see any of the positions that you mentioned that he holds on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Graham

 

[solitaria]

Tqm

So what do you think of how the Afghanistan war effort has been handled?

 

[clubber]

Denmark abolished the upper chamber in 1953. Time for canada to do the same. At the same time, get rid of the queen.

I would personally like to see an elected effective senate as a check to the other house. I have a hard time seeing it actually happening with the current house against it. I don't mind seeing the senate go.

The Queen I would not like to see go. I would not like to see Canada pull out of the Common Wealth. It is a great institution. The Queen represents a huge part of Canadian history. We were once a British colony that became a country not through revolution but through a peaceful process. The fact that we were a British Colony is where our law and our democracy comes from. Our membership in the Common Wealth gives us some extra strength internationally. It also means we can participate in the Common Wealth games. This is one we can actually get a few more golds.

I do not want to see Canada a Republic. That would be a sad day.

 

[clubber]

Shortly after gaining power Harper introduced Senate reform which included term limits. This, along with other reforms were stalled in the Senate.

What a joke. The senate should be abolished, it serves no purpose other than a reward for political hacks.

Solitaria is all wound up over MP's earning $150K a year, at least they work for their pay. The Senate, now that is another story and a collosal waste of money.

There are some Senators actually do some work, but most don't. Do you remember when they got a bonus for just showing up?

Most MP's do a lot of work for their area. I remember in our area Bill Winegard, a Conservative. Easy guy to like, who did a lot of great work for the area. One of the hardest things is to vote against someone like that, because we needed to get rid of Mulroney. I wish there had of been a way to vote for him and against the party. I am sure this has happened to many people in many areas. A good MP running for the party they do not like, equally a bad MP running for the party you do like.

$150k a year for doing this is not that much when you compare it to a district manager of most large private companies.