The MPs are really stressed

[FabulousBakerGirl]

Bless.

The rules were fine.

The MPs took the piss.

Apparently the media, the public and the papers are to blame.

Oh dear.

For instance, the organisation I used to work for spent an awful long time trying to alert the EU parliament and our own to the dangers of allowing doctors to work in any EU country no matter what their qualifications or experience. British MPs didn't give a toss. Even though there was an obvious problem as no other country has a comparable set-up in general practice (bar Denmark).

Now we've got out of hours providers shipping over any old doctor from other EU countries, and at least one man being killed as a result. The 'GP' who gave him a deadly overdose of morphine actually practises cosmetic treatments and had never handled morphine before.

I'm sure there are other cases that haven't come to light. Here was an obvious danger, but the UK parliament couldn't be arsed to deal with it. 'Oh, it's EU legislation, nowt to do with us.'

(We also have the ridiculous situation where doctors from former Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia have to pass an English test before they can work here, but Germans, the French and Poles don't have to. Nice to know you could be treated by someone who can't even read your notes much less understand you, especially if you don't speak RP.)

edam- MPs have (some) law making powers and wider influence and so should not be too vulnerable to outside influeneces and lobbying...is the point I am trying to make. Want a cleaned up system but don't want the unintended consequence of it becoming a rich or corrupted (bribed) club. I don't want to completely rely on politicians entering politics for the right reasons. I think we see that doesn't competely work

ToughDaddy if you for a moment imagine that MPs are going to be invulnerable to political lobbyists if we pay them enough then you're very naive. Why do you think they have so many secondary jobs where they get paid huge amounts for doing naff all? It's not because companies value their input so highly they'll pay them more than their chief exec, believe me.

Th irony is that a proposal was on the table to deal with MPs pay and expenses when the "John Leiws list" blew up not so long ago. But the govt was sensitive to not going for a proposal which increased pay (to offset reduced expenses) because they were looking horns on public sector (Police) pay. So they didn't bit the bullet and make the change. This is what I recall anyway.

spicemonster- I would like increased pay, very limited expenses, no extra jobs, full exopense diosclosure and general increase in accountability including recall, publishing attendence register, publish earnings, receipts etc. The pay of MPs is small beer and I think we should look at "value" not cost of MPs.

The problem is that it would be very difficult to find a safe limit above which MPs become immune to outside influences. Looking at how much some of them make from a combination of their salary and outside jobs and it still seems to have no effect on their (lack of) integrity, one wonders if the economy could actually bear the kind of astronomical salary that might potentially keep them honest.

And how come lower than average salaries is not an excuse for dishonesty in other professions. We all agree that nurses and teachers should earn more. Does that exonerate a teacher who is found helping herself from school funds? Or save a nurse from losing a job when she is caught selling hospital equipment?

Everybody knows that we can't rely solely on nurses who enter the profession with the dream of being Florence Nightingale. But they have a healthy fear of what might happen if they were caught with their hands in the till.

The treasurer of the PTA at a school near me (not ds's) is being prosecuted for allegedly helping himself to the funds.

Do you think we should just pat him on the head and say, oh dear, you weren't actually being paid for your time, it's not your fault, have an allowance?

edam- i think action to should be taken where there has been fraud. But perhaps liberal claims within the rules should be punished by repayment plus fines? I don't have all the answers and I am more concerned about having the right structure in place so that we don't have a diff set of problems in 25yrs time.

Cory- MPs should be paid as well as mid/senior civil servants. Possibily we should have a few less of them and they should be made more accountable. Possibily we could have part-time "people's reps" [very Blair/Cameron-ite, but there you go] whose job is to meet with local citizens and turn up to vote and represent their views only. But they keep day jobs. I haven't thought this through completely but there is scope for getting better value. But I think that it is a false economy to only look at cost of MPs rather than the value you could get from them. Their salary is very very small beer against what they could achieve.

Will they then need similar qualifications to senior civil servants, ToughDaddy? Or how do we justify it if they have not had anything like the length of training, or the proven ability?

what qualifications do these senior mandrins have? Some are lawyers/acctnts but some MPS are doctors/lawyers/acctnts as well.

Qualifications isn't everything. It is more about responsibilty and suitability.

There are some major CEOs who only have a degree.

yes but MPs are sometimes very young and with few other qualifications than striking a chord with the electorate (and tbh not always all that responsible)

I think I meant more, would this be a move towards a more conformist mandarin-type of MP? older? with a professional background? (which some MPs have but not all)

just interested really, and I don't know what type is best

ToughDaddy - did you look at that link I posted comparing our MPs against other European countries? They earn about average and in other countries their elected officials don't find it necessary to fleece the electorate

I am still bemused by why MPs in particular would need to earn more than others to be immune to outside influences. Doctors are supposed to cope with the fact that many lawyers earn more than them, without needing to take bribes from the drugs companies out of pique. Lawyers have to cope with the fact that many city bankers earn more than them- again, without taking bribes. Are politicians the only ones that exist in some sort of moral vacuum? Or are doctors and lawyers really all that moral and dedicated? Or is it not simply that they know they are constantly scrutinised and at risk of losing their jobs. They can't vote to make it illegal to inspect their doings.

spicem- i will loook at the article as soon as i get home thanks. But i don't think that you are right about political corruption in other countries. British MPs come out favourably on this score in my experience. I have lived half of my life overseas. My Spanish, Itlaian, South African, Us and Canadian friends are all lauging about our self examination. DOn't get me wrong on this, I do think that fraud should be dealth with.

Cory- there are a few structures that you can play with to ensure more diverse representation e.g. full time manadrin types + quota of part time MPs with other jobs + 50pc gender split (why not?) + a few other bells and whistles

And flicking back at earlier posts, I and DP have both done those professional quals at big firms and it is toughish but I still don't see why an MP should earn less that a new qualif young prof. / blue chip middle manager. That's is perverse.

Doing a bit of tax comp, a few supplier contracts or stat accounts is valuable but so should be an MPs work is we get the right structure.

Really? My friends (except for the Italian ones whose MPs are corrupt through and through) are quite horrified that Britain which holds itself up as such a paragon of upright democracy has such corruption in our highest ranks.

And actually they earn rather more than a newly qualified. If you were an FD at a small company, you'd earn around 65k. And you'd probably be mid 30s then, having got a degree and a professional accountancy qualification under your belt.

I don't think your 'if we paid them more they wouldn't feel the need to defraud the country' argument holds much weight to be honest. About as holey as their expense claims!

So now they are all hanging on until the General election so that they can get resettlement fees. Haven't they had enough?

Have decided that if expatinscot would help me as campaign manager then i will try to run as a "people's MP". Need a hard hitter like expatinscot

How many newly qualified young professionals do actually earn more than 64k?

Cory- I think very many. Many more than there are MPs. I resolved to only only go into full time politics when/if I can self finance. Even then, I think it may be more interesting to dabble with my own micro projects than get caught up in that messy beaucry.

Pay MPs properly and then more women will be able to afford proper childcare and do the job properly. Whatever the right and wrong of it, it is women who struggle more to be MPs? Please correct me if I am wrong on this but DHs are not always as supportive of career as DWs

beaucry sounds horrible, ToughDaddy

'Oh, the irony of Mr Cash being caught lining his pockets at our expense. '

Oh, you should have heard him screeching at Alistair, the newsreader on STV, edam!

He kept saying, 'I was within the rules!'

And Alistair kept shouting, 'Rules you all made up!'

But ToughDaddy, you say that they earn less than newly qualified lawyers etc. According to this from Lawcareers they don't. The average for trainee lawyers, in 2003 (admittedly a while ago, but I don't imagine that the figures have changed too much) was £26,635. How is that more than £64k, excluding earnings from other sources and expense allowance? They earn more, and have the option of earning extra money as "advisers" to various companies. Can you honestly tell me that they are fully justifying these second salaries and that they are not being unduly influenced?

And yes, compared to other countries, the UK is relatively uncorrupt (as far as we know, as the corruption and bribery legislation in force is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. It is being revised now, but that's the "current" act).

I agree that the fraud should be dealt with and they should be publicly shamed. Otherwise, this becomes normal behaviour and spreads throughout society. Having recently travelled to numerous countries with have MAJOR issues with corruption, and corruption prevention being a major element of my job, I feel it is incredibly important for this immoral activity to remain outside the norm, rather have people become resigned to it. For example, I was in Moscow and discussed the issue with a colleague, and she siad: Russians hate it. But, how are lower civil servants etc. to survive on their salaries? There is very little incentive to stop, and it destroys the economy.

And the allowances are tax-free.

They also get 14 weeks off and an extremely generous pension.

bleuh- I meant newly qual lawyers/acctnts. Also, I don't think that "full time" MPS should be allowed outside jobs under the current structure. Their outside jobs current compromise them in some cases? I am more worried about that than the odd M of salary against the size of our national budget.

Could change structure though to allow part-time MPs per earlier post.