Why do MP's make so much?

[TQM]

solitaria,

I'm well versed in the tradition that somehow one is supposed to put up with stupidity civilly. I disagree with the tradition.

You had an axe to grind about MP's salaries, and when you were presented with an argument against your position, rather than consider it, you hoped to find some flaw in the details listed. Nothing I've stated about Bill Graham isn't public knowledge. I could have listed several other biographical tidbits as well - such as his well known charitable support including helping found Doctors without Borders. I could have told you precisely why Paul Martin took him away from Foreign Affairs and put him in Defence - something a friend wouldn't normally do to one. But that information wasn't germaine to the discussion.

I could tell you as well the offers he received to teach abroad. I could have pointed out that his investment income alone was measured in the millions per year (read up on his father). But that wasn't really relevant either.

My point was that he didn't need the money - and that's why he was willing to accept so much less than he was making.

Rather than accept the argument that it is hard to attract the best, you chose to attempt, foolishly, to discredit my Graham claims, some of which you have now verified with the wiki citing.

So - to my way of thinking not only are you wrong, but you're deliberately being stupid to defend your position. You refused to look at the possibility that the best people would be reluctant to take the risks and pay cut and lack of security.

Why I should be civil when you are on this course, is beyond me. Instead, I've gotten your attention. I've let you know I don't appreciate what you are saying. You'll be more careful next time (even if you can't stand me.)

As for Afghanistan - while progress has been made, there isn't nearly sufficient troop support there. The UN is chiefly responsible for this lack of support. It shouldn't always be up to the US to save the world. The Taliban regime was absolutely brutal - the worst regime into the 21st century. I believe success in Afghanistan would be easily achievable - it has a much more basic dynamic than does Iraq. Trusting that will suffice as an answer.

 

[LancsLad]

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

Our just danes who conveniently forget that it is our British heritage that made Canada into an enviable place to go to. Perhaps traitorous immigrants who forget that a Canadian Citizen is a BRITISH ubject should be packed and sent home. Your disloyalty to your Soveriegn is noted.

 

[solitaria]

You had an axe to grind about MP's salaries, and when you were presented with an argument against your position, rather than consider it, you hoped to find some flaw in the details listed. Nothing I've stated about Bill Graham isn't public knowledge. I could have listed several other biographical tidbits as well - such as his well known charitable support including helping found Doctors without Borders. I could have told you precisely why Paul Martin took him away from Foreign Affairs and put him in Defence - something a friend wouldn't normally do to one. But that information wasn't germaine to the discussion.

My point wasn't every MP would make less in the private sector but that the vast majority would make considerably less which is where the problem exists since compensation should be based on the lessor of the value a person creates within a given position and a rate slightly above their next best option. Of course you can find those who would make more and are overqualified for the position, but that doesn't mean the position should pay more, or that the pay scale should be adjusted upwards to reflect what an overqualified candidate would get in the private sector but rather it should be set at what the median person with the skills needed to do the job would get in the private sector. I especially hate the fact that the MP's vote for their own salary increases.

I could tell you as well the offers he received to teach abroad. I could have pointed out that his investment income alone was measured in the millions per year (read up on his father).

You do realize investment income is irrelevant because Bill Graham didn't have to give that up in becoming a MP?

When did he receive these offers to teach abroad?

My point was that he didn't need the money - and that's why he was willing to accept so much less than he was making.

Rather than accept the argument that it is hard to attract the best, you chose to attempt, foolishly, to discredit my Graham claims, some of which you have now verified with the wiki citing.

Just reference a website that details he served on the board of many large companies before he became an MP. I couldn't find it on his own website or wikipedia. If he didn't serve on the board of some large company he absolutely didn't take a pay cut. I know this doesn't make a difference to the argument I am putting forth but I am just curious as to whether what you say is actually true as I think he wouldn't omit such information on his own personal website.

Getting back on topic though I think you would have to be pretty stupid to think the vast majority of MPs would take pay cuts to serve as an MP especially when they are voting to give themselves raises. That's just not human nature. The only time that people will take a pay cut is when they are millionaires and money ceases to matter to them and the hunger for power takes over. That is not the majority of MP's, and regardless it is irrelevant to the discussion of whether MP's are paid too much.

So - to my way of thinking not only are you wrong, but you're deliberately being stupid to defend your position. You refused to look at the possibility that the best people would be reluctant to take the risks and pay cut and lack of security.

Fuck you have comprehension difficulties. I argued that we don't need the best (if by best you mean brightest) people in politics as it is just administration and bureaucracy so therefore they shouldn't be paid as such. We need the best to do engineering, medical research and surgery. I don't know if you realize this but really bright people would be bored to death in politics as it doesn't have any intellectual substance to it.

Why I should be civil when you are on this course, is beyond me. Instead, I've gotten your attention. I've let you know I don't appreciate what you are saying. You'll be more careful next time (even if you can't stand me.)

I see that you are a legend in your own mind.

As for Afghanistan - while progress has been made, there isn't nearly sufficient troop support there. The UN is chiefly responsible for this lack of support. It shouldn't always be up to the US to save the world. The Taliban regime was absolutely brutal - the worst regime into the 21st century. I believe success in Afghanistan would be easily achievable - it has a much more basic dynamic than does Iraq. Trusting that will suffice as an answer.

I wouldn't have went into Afghanistan and nothing has been achieved.

 

[train]

My point wasn't every MP would make less salary increases.



.

The fact that many MP's are less than worthy is partially the fault of the electing public who don't boot them out at the earliest opportunity...... mainly because they vote blindly along party lines.

I think someone nailed this on the first page when they said that the current salary isn't nearly enough to attract the best and the brightest. We should double it.

 

[Keebler Elf]

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

I don't understand why MP's make so much.

You have a lot of misconceptions.

High-ranking people in the government (i.e., MPs) can usually make more money iin the private sector. A lot of senior bureaucrats use the public sector for the experience and then bail to make bucketloads more cash in the private sector. That's part of why turnover of senior people is so high (note, I'm not talking about joe-blow gov't employee operating a work station or desk job). Take a look at how many MPs are lawyers; it will surprise you.

One could argue quite successfully that the best and brightest don't want to work in the public sector. Why would they? People like you would bash them all the time. And for less money? Uhh, no thanks.

So it becomes self-fulfilling. The best and brightest don't want to work in gov't and the public bashes the gov't so why would they? It's certainly not for the money.

As for technical skills, you're really missing the boat on that one. Senior bureaucrats and MPs aren't hired/paid for their technical skills. They're hired for their leadership and organizational skills. If I had a nickel for every technocrat who couldn't establish a positive relationship if their life depended on it, I'd be a millionaire. The techies should stick to what they do best and leave the managing to those can manage (at least, what few there are since no talented manager with an ounce of common sense would want to work in gov't).

Another thing to consider is how many people are willing to take a job when there's a strong possibility they'll be turfed in four years? You'd have to pay me a premium to do that. Much better to spend that four years in a corporation where you can climb the ladder and not have to worry about the fickle public voting you out simply b/c they don't like the PM.

Governments at all levels are in serious trouble when it comes to talent management. The older generation is retiring and the newer generation don't have the desire to work in a gov't where they'll be relatively underpaid, bashed by the public at every turn, and analyzed to death. Why would I work for $150K in gov't with all its headaches when I can work for $175K in the private sector and be much more of a "master of my own domain," so to speak.

But the real truth is that a heck of a lot of people just can't stomach the fact that someone else is making so much more money than them for something they consider to be an easy job. But there's the rub. If those people really knew what they were talking about, they'd be the ones making the big money. But they aren't. So they don't.

End of story.

 

[TQM]

If you can dig deep enough

you'll find plenty of biographical information on him in a back issue of Toronto Life Magazine. The trick will be in seeing if you can find the Sylvia Fraser article. It is fairly comprehensive and is to my knowledge nowhere near complete! Still it would be your best resource.

http://www.torontolife.com/covers/2003/5/

Graham leaves out over 90% of his career in just about any govt. biography I've ever seen. One reason is because he gets beset upon by whackjobs. Another reason is fear of being targeted. He's never been flashy and has never sought to be the big public voice of anything. As I've repeatedly pointed out, he was willing to serve because he could afford the pay cut.

Graham has never attempted to sell his record. He'd walk away from anything that required it. Unlike others, he didn't assume he'd get a cabinet post from Chretien - and instead quietly once again earned the Foreign Affairs posting by impressing Chretien repeatedly. He served first as Chair of the International Trade committee and the all party praise he received there over a few years of work pretty much made the appointment to Cabinet a no-brainer.

Graham had been officially neutral on all leadership races within the party - prefering to serve the party as moderator for the debates (going back in fact to the Turner years). In politics, this makes you no friends. But that was always Graham's way. He let his record speak for him. Everyone knew he was personal friends with Paul Martin. But no one would question his neutrality.

As for the claim that we don't need such people in office - that's asinine. It's completely the lack of such people that makes politics ridiculous.

Announcement of his retirement here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070619/graham_retire_070619?s_name=&no_ads=

 

[themexi]

First of all, as danmand mentioned, MP's are ELECTED not hired.

People believing that there should be ANY difference between the two concepts are the reason these weasels are allowed to get away with their abuses. We the people elect Representatives to perform a function. The job we select them for & Pay them for is to represent us in parliament.

Make NO mistake, ELECTING=HIRING & anyone who tries to say otherwise is helping to facilitate these pricks abuses of the power WE have hired them to wield on OUR behalf for OUR benefit. They should only benefit from their authority insofar as they are citizens just like us.

Parties are basically political trade unions or guilds. They are a sham. Treat your representatives as induviduals & refuse to recognize these parties & you will see them finally doing their job & earning their frigging pay.

 

[TQM]

Last point

MP's do get to vote on their own salaries. And every time they do so the issue is understandibly contentious. There is inveitably a knee jerk reaction (surprise!) to an MP getting a raise. Civil services raises are rarely looked at, but elected officials - there the ones who are put under the magnifying glass on these issues.

In fact, historically, it's MP's themselves who put themselves under this microscope - it was no less the man of deep convictions himself - Preston Manning - that a) promised to never live in Stornaway - the home for the Leader of the Official Opposition - and instead turn it into a bingo hall; and b) promised to not accept a "gold-plated" pension.

Of course, Manning proved himself an imbecile by living in Stornaway, not turning it into a bingo hall, and accepting his pension. The pension thing was once Reform Party policy.

Now the question is - who should decide raises for MP's? Obviously, there is no other body that can reasonably make such decisions.

More to the point, there is no body that would be more accountable for such decisions - because if you fundamentally disagree with your MP's vote, the public can do something about it - namely to kick the guy out of office next election.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

People believing that there should be ANY difference between the two concepts are the reason these weasels are allowed to get away with their abuses. We the people elect Representatives to perform a function. The job we select them for & Pay them for is to represent us in parliament.

Make NO mistake, ELECTING=HIRING & anyone who tries to say otherwise is helping to facilitate these pricks abuses of the power WE have hired them to wield on OUR behalf for OUR benefit. They should only benefit from their authority insofar as they are citizens just like us.

Parties are basically political trade unions or guilds. They are a sham. Treat your representatives as induviduals & refuse to recognize these parties & you will see them finally doing their job & earning their frigging pay.

So, you are in favour of hiring cheaper students out of school to fill the seats in Parliament?

Rather than getting bogged down by semantics, I will agree that ELECTING=HIRING. My post was directed at the original poster whose solution to addressing the "high pay" of MP's was to appoint cheap, student labour.

I happen to believe MP's are paid a fair salary. That aside, I prefer to be involved in the "hiring" process.

 

[great bear]

For the amount of time the ordinary MP puts in on his/her job the pay is not extravagant by any means. I've met dozens of these people and they rarely leave their office by 8.00 PM and are generally in their office by 7.00 AM. Without question some are in it for the power but few ever actually get to acquire power. For a few the pay schedule is more than they ever made in private life. For a few others the pay is much, much, less than they made in their private lives.

Personally for the hours they work, the amount of public scrutiny they are under I am always amazed at how many people actually go through the rigours of just seeking a nomination. If they win a riding nomination they then have to run in an election to win a House of Commons/Provincial Legislature seat. The process of winning a federal or provincial seat is not just for the duration of the six week election period. Nominated candidates generally take six to eight months from their lives pre election to campaign in their riding's.
It truly is a thankless job.

Generally we hold politicians in low regard. We hold them to a higher personal standard than we do for ourselves. We ask them to do "things" and then complain when taxes are increased to accomplish the "things" we demanded from them. I've always thought that a starting base salary of $150K should be available for any MP who entered politics making less than that amount. Any one entering politics making more than that amount senior CEO's, and individuals in that pay category should be paid what they were making in the private sector. This would help entice the best and the brightest into the political realm.

 

[danmand]

So, you are in favour of hiring cheaper students out of school to fill the seats in Parliament?

What do you find wrong with my proposal to let the homeless people in Toronto do the job? Afraid of an increase in social spending?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

What do you find wrong with my proposal to let the homeless people in Toronto do the job? Afraid of an increase in social spending?

I can see the advantages of your proposal.

They are already well versed in the art of "holding out the hand", not to mention the money to be saved in the unnecessary maintenance of constituency offices.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

For the amount of time the ordinary MP puts in on his/her job the pay is not extravagant by any means. I've met dozens of these people and they rarely leave their office by 8.00 PM and are generally in their office by 7.00 AM. Without question some are in it for the power but few ever actually get to acquire power. For a few the pay schedule is more than they ever made in private life. For a few others the pay is much, much, less than they made in their private lives.

Personally for the hours they work, the amount of public scrutiny they are under I am always amazed at how many people actually go through the rigours of just seeking a nomination. If they win a riding nomination they then have to run in an election to win a House of Commons/Provincial Legislature seat. The process of winning a federal or provincial seat is not just for the duration of the six week election period. Nominated candidates generally take six to eight months from their lives pre election to campaign in their riding's.
It truly is a thankless job.

Generally we hold politicians in low regard. We hold them to a higher personal standard than we do for ourselves. We ask them to do "things" and then complain when taxes are increased to accomplish the "things" we demanded from them. I've always thought that a starting base salary of $150K should be available for any MP who entered politics making less than that amount. Any one entering politics making more than that amount senior CEO's, and individuals in that pay category should be paid what they were making in the private sector. This would help entice the best and the brightest into the political realm.

I worked on the campaign for a local MP (initially, not an incumbant). The party nomination process was a bigger battle (and many times more nasty) than the federal election process.

You are indeed a wise bear.

 

[danmand]

I worked on the campaign for a local MP (initially, not an incumbant). The party nomination process was a bigger battle (and many times more nasty) than the federal election process.

NDP?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

NDP?

LMAO!

You know it.

 

[hoser1970]

You have a lot of misconceptions.

High-ranking people in the government (i.e., MPs) can usually make more money iin the private sector. A lot of senior bureaucrats use the public sector for the experience and then bail to make bucketloads more cash in the private sector. That's part of why turnover of senior people is so high (note, I'm not talking about joe-blow gov't employee operating a work station or desk job). Take a look at how many MPs are lawyers; it will surprise you.

One could argue quite successfully that the best and brightest don't want to work in the public sector. Why would they? People like you would bash them all the time. And for less money? Uhh, no thanks.

So it becomes self-fulfilling. The best and brightest don't want to work in gov't and the public bashes the gov't so why would they? It's certainly not for the money.

As for technical skills, you're really missing the boat on that one. Senior bureaucrats and MPs aren't hired/paid for their technical skills. They're hired for their leadership and organizational skills. If I had a nickel for every technocrat who couldn't establish a positive relationship if their life depended on it, I'd be a millionaire. The techies should stick to what they do best and leave the managing to those can manage (at least, what few there are since no talented manager with an ounce of common sense would want to work in gov't).

Another thing to consider is how many people are willing to take a job when there's a strong possibility they'll be turfed in four years? You'd have to pay me a premium to do that. Much better to spend that four years in a corporation where you can climb the ladder and not have to worry about the fickle public voting you out simply b/c they don't like the PM.

Governments at all levels are in serious trouble when it comes to talent management. The older generation is retiring and the newer generation don't have the desire to work in a gov't where they'll be relatively underpaid, bashed by the public at every turn, and analyzed to death. Why would I work for $150K in gov't with all its headaches when I can work for $175K in the private sector and be much more of a "master of my own domain," so to speak.

But the real truth is that a heck of a lot of people just can't stomach the fact that someone else is making so much more money than them for something they consider to be an easy job. But there's the rub. If those people really knew what they were talking about, they'd be the ones making the big money. But they aren't. So they don't.

End of story.

Very well put!

 

[hoser1970]

For the amount of time the ordinary MP puts in on his/her job the pay is not extravagant by any means. I've met dozens of these people and they rarely leave their office by 8.00 PM and are generally in their office by 7.00 AM. Without question some are in it for the power but few ever actually get to acquire power. For a few the pay schedule is more than they ever made in private life. For a few others the pay is much, much, less than they made in their private lives.

Personally for the hours they work, the amount of public scrutiny they are under I am always amazed at how many people actually go through the rigours of just seeking a nomination. If they win a riding nomination they then have to run in an election to win a House of Commons/Provincial Legislature seat. The process of winning a federal or provincial seat is not just for the duration of the six week election period. Nominated candidates generally take six to eight months from their lives pre election to campaign in their riding's.
It truly is a thankless job.

Generally we hold politicians in low regard. We hold them to a higher personal standard than we do for ourselves. We ask them to do "things" and then complain when taxes are increased to accomplish the "things" we demanded from them. I've always thought that a starting base salary of $150K should be available for any MP who entered politics making less than that amount. Any one entering politics making more than that amount senior CEO's, and individuals in that pay category should be paid what they were making in the private sector. This would help entice the best and the brightest into the political realm.

I really like this idea, provided that:

a) they had to have been employed within 6 months of entering their nomination (eliminates those disgraced CEO types from looking for a cushy soft landing after being turfed by the Board of Directors)
b) salary would be based on their "base" salary only; would not include any compensation they received in their previous role from bonues, stock options, etc.

 

[markvee]

Now the question is - who should decide raises for MP's? Obviously, there is no other body that can reasonably make such decisions.

The electorate should decide the pay each election, by referendum, with the median value winning. This value could amount to a pay raise or a pay cut.

 

[TQM]

markvee,

I've got to say that aside from the cost of holding such a referendum and the amount of work involved in tabulating the result, on the face of it your suggestion presents one of the best cases against democracy.

 

[markvee]

I've got to say that aside from the cost of holding such a referendum and the amount of work involved in tabulating the result, on the face of it your suggestion presents one of the best cases against democracy.

If the electorate can do such a great job of electing overqualified candidates, I'm sure that the electorate is capable of choosing a fair compensation package.

In terms of costs, the referendum question could be put right on the ballot, and the same people that tally the votes could crunch the pay numbers. The referendum could pay for itself if the result amounted to a pay cut.