NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from comment 6 of this linked article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/gordon-brown-comment-banks)

Government Ministers, and the MPs in their party, should have performance related pay:

1] All MPs should face a pay freeze given the current economic situation and to set an example to the rest of the population (so the words 'I share your pain' have some meaning).

2] All MPs should receive 25% of their remuneration as a bonus, but subject to a 5 year deferment. That portion of their income would be placed in a fund and would grow (or decline) in line with GPD growth (less the percentage growth in Government borrowing and net tax increases).

3] Ministers should have individual performance targets for their area of Government. Targets should be set out in an election manifesto encouraging the appointment of Ministers who are capable. The additional salary payable to a Government Minister (over and above an MP's salary) should only be paid when performance is hit, and again, 50% of that increased earning potential should be held in a fund for 5 years, and based on long term achievement of targets.

4] The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor should have pay based on performance (against real and measurable targets), to include a number of measures including including achieving inflation targets, economic growth, reduction of Government Debt as a proportion of GDP, GDP growth, levels of taxation, a reduction in unemployment, a reduction in crime, an increase in educational performance, and a cut in hospital waiting lists. 50% of their remuneration package should be placed in a fund and be subject to claw back. This would encourage the Prime Minister to appoint capable individuals to Ministerial posts (jobs for friends or politically motivated appointments would therefore be discouraged, since failure would directly impact on the PM's pay packet).

5] Each political party should publish minimum standards within their manifesto commitment including specific targets on taxation, GDP growth, Government borrowing, crime, education, health, these targets should be annual and 5 years' of targets should be published to cover a full Parliamentary term. If targets are missed for more than 2 years in a row, there should be an automatic general election (so the shareholders in Great Britain can re-elect a new 'board' to run the country).

6] Rates of payrise for the Parliamentary term should be declared within their manifesto commitment,and only awarded for hitting the benchmarks included within the manifesto.

7] There should be minimum standards (targets) published, and if the Government fails to meet these targets, Ministers should not be paid any of their 5 year bonus.

8] There should not be a pay rise (in percentage terms) which exceeds the national average, so that MPs' own growth in earnings reflects the increase or decrease in wealth of the population as a whole.

The comment is in response to a clearly PR written article by Gordon Brown but the question is: should MPs back their promises with real effects on their monetary reward?

I've long felt the parliamentary system needs overhauling, I quite like this proposal on first reading but, as ever, the important question is...

What does NSG think!

I think you get what you pay for.

But you have to watch out to get your money's worth anytime you pay anybody, be that a builder or a politician. It's human nature to try and get away with doing as little as possible.

I really like number 5. Other than the obvious cost of running a general election every two years. Which is exactly what would happen.

Other than that, it's mostly PR. Pay for MPs is a tiny tiny fraction of the national expenditure, so it's not like this is a really important thing except to prevent tabloids printing their "OMG politicians get good money!!!!" headlines every couple of months.

No. It's nice in theory but as we have seen with 'targets' before it's merely going to encourage playing the statistics even more and ticking boxes rather than any real improvement in governance.

I do agree with point 1 though, a pay freeze should be in place, given the current economic situation. But overall I am resistant of anything that tries to take complex issues regarding the improvement of society and good governance and tries to reduce it into an easily understandable list of 'targets' because the whole is often far more important than the indiividual parts.

I think you get what you pay for.

But you have to watch out to get your money's worth anytime you pay anybody, be that a builder or a politician. It's human nature to try and get away with doing as little as possible.

They say the punishment for poor governance is losing one's job [in the next election] but how many MPs (read Representatives] or Ministers [read Senators] are really punished given they can get advisory positions due to their connections, they're rarely sent to the poorhouse.

One could argue that taking a public position puts one under the scrutiny of the public eye, one risks being hated, ridiculed, it's a position of responsibility few of us would undertake.

Yet has government become more about populist vote-grabbing [one could argue politicians are under more scrutiny, more subject to transient public opinion than ever] with no real personal risk to themselves?

Capitalists might argue that there's no incentive like monetary incentive, should this be applied to our politicians?

Sounds perfect altohugh what if GDP growth and other targets are hit at a human cost?


E.g only do simple operations to reduce waiting lists!

An appealling plan, but I don't think it could work. First problem I can see is that some of the economic performance targets would be contradictory e.g. government spending to reduce employment can increase the government's debts and inflation. Who can objectively say what economic priorities are the most important? Would these all get equal weighting in terms of pay bonuses, or would reducing inflation get a higher bonus than reducing employment, for instance? I doubt the parties would agree on this, so it would no doubt be slanted to advantage whichever party drafted the legislation.

Reductions in crime, improving educational performance, and lower waiting lists are all subject to being spun by the government. How many times have we seen the way these things are measured changed?

Capitalists might argue that there's no incentive like monetary incentive, should this be applied to our politicians?

Any politican could get better money doing an easier job in business. I doubt it's all about money for them.

A nice idea, but rather unrealistic. Who defines the "measurable standards"? I wouldn't be surprised if it was the very government officials whose pay is on the line. It is likely that each Government would prioritize some fields over others, as well, -- seeing as it makes the rules in the first place -- and there's nothing really stopping it from redefining the standards to maximize its own pay while not actually changing anything.

If the issues could be worked out I could see such a policy receiving my support. However, it's too open to abuse, and unlikely to work in practice.

They say the punishment for poor governance is losing one's job [in the next election] but how many MPs (read Representatives] or Ministers [read Senators] are really punished given they can get advisory positions due to their connections, they're rarely sent to the poorhouse.

One could argue that taking a public position puts one under the scrutiny of the public eye, one risks being hated, ridiculed, it's a position of responsibility few of us would undertake.

Yet has government become more about populist vote-grabbing [one could argue politicians are under more scrutiny, more subject to transient public opinion than ever] with no real personal risk to themselves?

Capitalists might argue that there's no incentive like monetary incentive, should this be applied to our politicians?

It's a carrot-and-stick game, and I think you're right to point out that the stick is currently missing.
However, removing the carrot as well is not going to fix the problem.

The problem I see with those targets is that a lot of politician would introduce panicky, ill-thought-out measures to reach their targets, that will fall apart about a day or two after the deadline has been passed. A persistent argument for keeping politicians in office for around 4 years is that it will allow them to introduce measures that may be unpopular at first, but ultimately might provide a good solution to a problem, without the politician having to worry about the next election coming up and shying away from anything that will prove unpopular in the short run.
Taxing petrol, introducing smoking bans and the like spring to mind.

Any disputes over figures can go to court, where people feel empowered in having a financial effect, rather than voting one same government in over another, I suspect they'll invest more scrutiny into the process.

If a company fudges the figures, they can be taken to court by the shareholders, why not government?

Any case would require a certain amount of national signatures, easily handled by digital signature referendum.

Sounds perfect altohugh what if GDP growth and other targets are hit at a human cost?


E.g only do simple operations to reduce waiting lists!

i'd hope, hope mind you, that we'd see through this kind of play, a play already used by politicians in terms of fudging figures.

It could just lead to parties setting their goals so low that they ultimately achieve nothing, but still get their bonus.

It's a carrot-and-stick game, and I think you're right to point out that the stick is currently missing.
However, removing the carrot as well is not going to fix the problem.

The problem I see with those targets is that a lot of politician would introduce panicky, ill-thought-out measures to reach their targets, that will fall apart about a day or two after the deadline has been passed. A persistent argument for keeping politicians in office for around 4 years is that it will allow them to introduce measures that may be unpopular at first, but ultimately might provide a good solution to a problem, without the politician having to worry about the next election coming up and shying away from anything that will prove unpopular in the short run.
Taxing petrol, introducing smoking bans and the like spring to mind.

The deferment on pay, and it was really on Minister's pay over and above basic MP pay, is put forward as 5 years, the same as the current election limits, there should be no more short-termism than is currently in place.

It could just lead to parties setting their goals so low that they ultimately achieve nothing, but still get their bonus.

As opposed to the current system, except promises are high, results are low, it might add some honesty to the system and therefore produce true competition rather than empty phrases and gestures.

Separate from this, I understand the natural inclination is to poke holes, which is entirely acceptable, but I'd also like to hear refinements and additions and thoughts rather than singular hole-poking.

*not aimed at Ifreann, merely a general request.

Any disputes over figures can go to court, where people feel empowered in having a financial effect, rather than voting one same government in over another, I suspect they'll invest more scrutiny into the process.

If a company fudges the figures, they can be taken to court by the shareholders, why not government?

Any case would require a certain amount of national signatures, easily handled by digital signature referendum.

Actually, it would be an interesting idea to have a government run like a corporation. Where only those who purchase the government's stock can vote, and a small group of the wealthiest citizens is allowed to choose the President, and has veto power over him. Et cetera.

Of course, the ordinary worker drone would still have absolutely no power to change things, but then again, they aren't supposed to.

Actually, it would be an interesting idea to have a government run like a corporation. Where only those who purchase the government's stock can vote, and a small group of the wealthiest citizens is allowed to choose the President, and has veto power over him. Et cetera.

Of course, the ordinary worker drone would still have absolutely no power to change things, but then again, they aren't supposed to.

Yet, theoretically, we're all shareholders under the system proposed, each with one vote.

I'm not asking for a plutocracy, I feel we already have one of those.

Except, you know, some republicans don't have enough millions to cover their negative salaries. :eek:

Freeze politicians' pay, and have their allowances increase only by the rate of inflation, from one election to the next..
And then require each party to specify how it would increase pay and allowances, if it wins power at the next election, in its campaign literature.

I have my performance related pay target set today and I argued as strongly as possible to amend them in such a way that I could reap the maximum financial benefit for the least work. I had to argue against my boss who, at the end of the day, could set them however she liked.

Governments would do no different except in their case they don't have a boss to slap them down when they push it too far. I see nothing happening other than them making more money regardless of the economic climate of the country.