Why do MP's make so much?

[TQM]

mv

tallying average salaries is a wee bit more difficult than counting votes.

Just a wee bit.

And I do think the idea is insane. A great way to make sure no one qualified runs for office.

 

[markvee]

tallying average salaries is a wee bit more difficult than counting votes.

Just a wee bit.

I said median not average. The numbers on the ballot would merely need to be recorded. The median could not be determined until all numbers were recorded.

And I do think the idea is insane. A great way to make sure no one qualified runs for office.

The voters chose Bill Graham, a good choice according to you. Why do you doubt the ability of voters to offer their representatives fair compensation?

 

[TQM]

time to be immodest.

I got Bill Graham elected. Bill lost in 84 and 88. I wasn't around.

Voters vote and often vote stupidly - remember Jag Bhaduria? To think they could make appropriate decisions on MP's salaries, without any guidance or expertise is silly.

 

[markvee]

I got Bill Graham elected. Bill lost in 84 and 88. I wasn't around.

Voters vote and often vote stupidly - remember Jag Bhaduria? To think they could make appropriate decisions on MP's salaries, without any guidance or expertise is silly.

Should voters be allowed to vote at all if they make such bad decisions as electing Jag Bhaduria?

I have a higher opinion of the voters' capability to vote intelligently than you.

The voters could still be guided in their decision. There could be a referendum campaign. Those who advocated on this thread that MP's deserve double the $150K salary could work for a "They deserve $300K" campaign.

Ideally, I would like to see the entire compensation package on the ballot, including pension contributions.

 

[themexi]

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.

On the students, absolutely not. That is simply silly.

We agree on the points that the job pays a fair wage & that our involvement in the hiring process is essential.

My major point was that it doesn't matter how fairly payed a position is if the person hired for the job refuses to do it.

As far as I'm concerned politicians make grand promises that they either have no intention to keep or no reason to expect they can be kept. Whose fault is that? THE VOTERS. Time & time again they swallow this crap.

They look at party platforms & what they "stand for" & promise to give them & decide whose "values" they agree with more& who is likely to deliver on the highest % of promises that NO POLITICIAN Has the right to promise in the first place.

Although we have been bilked into believing that the truth is that they have ONE job & ONE job only & that it to represent us by going to parliament & delivering our wishes via speech & vote.

The only reason why we need the average MP at all is due to the fact that it would be both disorderly & physically impossible for all of our voices to be heard directly in the halls of government. We need to step back..get perspective...& remember:

They are our representative & nothing more.

They are our mouthpieces & nothing more.

They are our messengers & nothing more.

They. Are. Our. Bitches & nothing more.

And any politician that says or even hints at anything different should be taken to task every time they stumble out into the light of day, everywhere they go to eat, walk, speak, etc. They should be fired at the earliest opportunity & never have their contract renewed again.

Politicians like any citizen should always be fearful of not living up to their employers expectations & should expect to be fired if they dont.

If a politician chooses to slavishly follow the needs/ dictates of their political gangs ("Parties")over the needs/ dictates of their actual employers (the people they are supposed to represent in their riding) They are NOT doing their job.


We have bought this party gangsterism for so long that both the MPs & us have forgotten who is in charge of who. One way or another WE always decide what we want OUR tax dollars spent on. We can either grab them by the ball as induviduals & make them forget about seeking safety in parties, or we can pick which party will buy the votes of the stupid in the months leading up to every election from now until the end of time....which mark my words those sons of bitches will find a way of taxing too.............

 

[TQM]

hmmm...

I don't want a politician to be my mouthpiece. I want him or her to be his or her's own mouthpiece. I want them to have a brain. I want them to have reasoned opinions. I want them to be able to think for themselves.

It's really really easy to sit back here (like we all do) and be armchair critics. Real governing is another matter altogether.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I agree with TQM.

If any politician is failing to represent our interests, we have the ability to fire them.

 

[danmand]

If any politician is failing to represent our interests, we have the ability to fire them.

But make that everybody's interests, not just your's.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

But make that everybody's interests, not just your's.

Sure, but it's not everybody's vote I cast.

 

[TQM]

looking agrees with me.

I need to reconsider my opinion here. (heh, heh).

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I need to reconsider my opinion here. (heh, heh).

Don't second guess yourself. It's simply a case of my wisdom is rubbing off on you.

 

[TQM]

If this is the start of a trend,

I think I'm going to puke.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I think I'm going to puke.

I've actually agreed with you on more than one occasion. We're not far apart on a many issues.

The main difference between us is I'm more tolerant of opposing views and have the ability to discuss issues in a cordial manner (although I admit I don't always do so).

If you ever learn to take yourself less seriously and develop a sense of humour, your opinions may carry more weight with me.

 

[TQM]

I just told you I'm about to puke

and you tell me I have no sense of humour?

 

[TQM]

But anyway,

I'm more tolerant of opposing views than you. I'm just less tolerant of stupidity, hatred, and evil.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I'm more tolerant of opposing views than you. I'm just less tolerant of stupidity, hatred, and evil.

Alright, sure, It's not worth arguing over. I know how important it is to you to have the last word.

We'll soon see if you can prove me wrong.

 

[LancsLad]

Don't second guess yourself. It's simply a case of my wisdom is rubbing off on you.

Two timer, GB says you prefer to rub your "wisdom" off on him.

 

[solitaria]

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.

Most people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They think the median salary for a lawyer is over $300K and that there are many managerial salaries that make $175+K.

Managing is hard if it is managing a project that is very big and complex. I work for a company where the workforce is extremely educated (many people have graduate degrees) and spans many countries and only 1 person in 70 for the office makes over $175K. You simply don't have a clue if you think the majority of MP's could even approach their salaries in the public sector. Really you don't. The median salary for a lawyer with over 20 years of experience in Toronto isn't even $100K.

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Attorney_/_Lawyer/Salary/by_Years_Experience

Slightly off topic you kind of remind me of some strippers who think when the time is right they will quit their jobs and become secretaries for $60-70K.

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.

This is true for the private sector but not the public sector since the free market doesn't dictate compensation.

Most people wouldn't notice if all the MP's were replaced by monkeys. For the most part they are figureheads and their staff does everything. A MP's skill is in getting elected and sucking up to voters not in managing projects and creating change for the better.

 

[solitaria]

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.

Compensation should not be based on hard MP's work but rather on how productive they are at their jobs. There are plenty of people that work as hard or harder than MP's but make a fraction of their salaries. How hard an MP works shouldn't be used as justification for what they make.

 

[solitaria]

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=

So basically if I cut through all the crap you can't provide a link to back up what you have been saying regarding Graham being able to makes double or triple what he makes as a MP in the private sector.