18 Jul 06
At least in Australia, politicians receive a life long pension and this is not linked to any performance criteria.
I wonder if this is the case in your country ?
The world spends trillions of dollars on war and trying to achieve peace.
Politicians think short term and that's a problem.
It seems to me that a way to help achieve peace would be to establish some way of measuring the level of peace in the world and for retired politicians to receive some sort of bonus for reaching target levels of peace, rather than guaranteed pensions.
This would be administered at a world body level. The U.N. or the WMF ?
It may seem like a crazy idea but :-
- it links money to peace as money is linked to war.
- the greenhouse effect is being countered with the introduction of carbon credits so why not link money to the pursuit of peace ?
What's your thoughts and can you suggest a better model ?
18 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69I think that voting should be negative as well as positive.
At least in Australia, politicians receive a life long pension and this is not linked to any performance criteria.
I wonder if this is the case in your country ?
The world spends trillions of dollars on war and trying to achieve peace.
Politicians think short term and that's a problem.
It seems to me that a way to help achieve peace would be to e ...[text shortened]... k money to the pursuit of peace ?
What's your thoughts and can you suggest a better model ?
Specifically, each politician should get, not just a nominal vote, but also a rating, scaled from -3 (useless) to +3 (super).
There would be several benefits:
First, it would ensure that more people voted because they could express contempt as well as admiration.
Second, it would ensure that politicians wouldn't mistake being approved of for being considered the best of a bad lot. Also, extremist parties would be informed about how hated they are.
Finally, I also believe it would make politicans feel more accountable, as it would be shameful to get elected unless one's rating were at least above zero.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeBut surely you can only rate a politician once they have been in office for a while - so you have a chicken and egg situation.
I think that voting should be negative as well as positive.
Specifically, each politician should get, not just a nominal vote, but also a rating, scaled from -3 (useless) to +3 (super).
There would be several benefits:
First, it would ensure that more people voted because they could express contempt as well as admiration.
Second, it would en ...[text shortened]... ountable, as it would be shameful to get elected unless one's rating were at least above zero.
I think a large part of the problem is with the term politician. I don't think it should be a career option to 'go into politics'.
I was at university with a number of people who viewed politics as a career, and many of them are now in Westminster or Holyrood. Because they are career politicians, they always think in terms of their re-election prospects, rather than the interests of their consituents or their country.
Politicians are also ridiculously overpaid.
I would suggest a limit on how long a person can serve in parliament - something like 2 terms, or 10 years. They should be paid no more than the average wage for a skilled worker (as the SSP MSPs currently do).
There should be a mechanism where the constituents can immediately recall their representative, at any time - maybe sort of petition with a threshold.
Employers should have to keep jobs open for people who get elected to parliament - so that they don't think politics is their only possible career.
Just a few thoughts.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt wasn't always the case that they were overpaid, was it?
Politicians are also ridiculously overpaid.
I would suggest a limit on how long a person can serve in parliament - something like 2 terms, or 10 years. They should be paid no more than the average wage for a skilled worker (as the SSP MSPs currently do).
When I was being taught politics at school, I was told that MPs didn't get a huge salary, in order that it wasn't an incentive - that they should want to do it for the good of the country.
I believe that Blair's lot have had more and bigger wage rises than any other government (they vote for their own salary increase don't they? What a great system: "Do you want a 10% wage rise, yes or no?". I bet if the electorate voted on that they wouldn't get much).
The problem with limited terms is that, even now, parliament is a great career move if you want to move on to company directorships, board membership, etc. Particularly arms manufacturers, health and power companies. Limited terms might make it more of a stepping stone to one of these careers and, since it's temporary, people might not take the job seriously.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargYep. British MPs gave themselves something like a 20% salary rise around the same time as the firefighters' strike.
It wasn't always the case that they were overpaid, was it?
When I was being taught politics at school, I was told that MPs didn't get a huge salary, in order that it wasn't an incentive - that they should want to do it for the good of the country.
I believe that Blair's lot have had more and bigger wage rises than any other government (they vote for their own ...[text shortened]... ne of these careers and, since it's temporary, people might not take the job seriously.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargIt depends on how you define overpaid, I suppose, but I think they have been overpaid a long time before this current bunch of parasites came to power.
It wasn't always the case that they were overpaid, was it?
When I was being taught politics at school, I was told that MPs didn't get a huge salary, in order that it wasn't an incentive - that they should want to do it for the good of the country.
I believe that Blair's lot have had more and bigger wage rises than any other government (they vote for their own ...[text shortened]... ne of these careers and, since it's temporary, people might not take the job seriously.
I'm not sure it is as simple as MPs voting for their own pay rises. I think they are linked to a particular civil service grade, and then they have to vote to accept any change to their own salaries as a result of changes for this grade. I don't think this is ideal either.
But it is only recently that 'normal' people got elected at all. Not being landed gentry used to exclude you from the club.
I think, in the relatively recent past, MPs weren't paid at all.
I see your point about limited terms, but I think there needs to be a way of avoiding the idea of politics as a career. Maybe there needs to be a way of preventing people going on from politics to the boardroom - maybe you could insist people go back to their old job?
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat's a good idea but maybe not much better than existing polls, particularly in countries where voting isn't compulsory.
I think that voting should be negative as well as positive.
Specifically, each politician should get, not just a nominal vote, but also a rating, scaled from -3 (useless) to +3 (super).
There would be several benefits:
First, it would ensure that more people voted because they could express contempt as well as admiration.
Second, it would en ...[text shortened]... ountable, as it would be shameful to get elected unless one's rating were at least above zero.
What's your thoughts about providing politicians direct financial incentives for working towards long term peace ?
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Sambo69What if their constituents don't want long term peace?
That's a good idea but maybe not much better than existing polls, particularly in countries where voting isn't compulsory.
What's your thoughts about providing politicians direct financial incentives for working towards long term peace ?
Who decides whether they have satisfactorily worked for peace?
What other criteria should they have incentives for, and who decides these?
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeEveryone wants peace. Alternative means will be pursued to resolve disputes.
What if their constituents don't want long term peace?
Who decides whether they have satisfactorily worked for peace?
What other criteria should they have incentives for, and who decides these?
A world body keeps tabs on total deaths due to war internationally. All retired politicians receive a bonus if this is below an agreed target.
The focus is on long term peace.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Sambo69Clearly, not everyone wants peace - just look around the globe - there are all sorts of conflicts.
Everyone wants peace. Alternative means will be pursued to resolve disputes.
A world body keeps tabs on total deaths due to war internationally. All retired politicians receive a bonus if this is below an agreed target.
The focus is on long term peace.
So, if the US was to launch a further imperialist adventure against Iran, and the international death total - the kill-o-meter - went off the scale, then retiring politicians in Iceland will be penalised, wheras those US politicians who supported the action and who retire in 10 years, when the kill-o-meter is back at lower levels, might eventually get a bonus? How does this improve accountability?
The deaths need to be attributed to the politicians responsible. To hold all politicians on the planet collectively responsible is just daft, Im afraid.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Sambo69Do the politicians get to agree the targets? 🙂
Everyone wants peace. Alternative means will be pursued to resolve disputes.
A world body keeps tabs on total deaths due to war internationally. All retired politicians receive a bonus if this is below an agreed target.
The focus is on long term peace.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by mrstabbyIf MPs are in any way representative of their constituents, they should experience the same day-to-day issues as them.
Ok, give MPs a low salary.
Let the bribery commence.
Who has all the money? Corporations.
The country is now much better off as McDonalds runs it.
Happy Meal anyone?
So, they should be on a salary the same as the average skilled worker (in Scotland, this is about £25k). They'll also get expenses, but these should be published in detail.
19 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm proposing that we regard the politicians world wide as a team who need to work together to find solutions rather than resort to violence, and giving that team an incentive.
Clearly, not everyone wants peace - just look around the globe - there are all sorts of conflicts.
So, if the US was to launch a further imperialist adventure against Iran, and the international death total - the kill-o-meter - went off the scale, then retiring politicians in Iceland will be penalised, wheras those US politicians who supported the action ...[text shortened]... onsible. To hold all politicians on the planet collectively responsible is just daft, Im afraid.
To counter your concern, a bonus would be paid based on all deaths up to that date, rather than just deaths before their retirement.
Can we develop this model further ?