Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reasons Why Politicians Should Be Paid More(2)

Reasons Why Politicians Should Be Paid More(2)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42 |Likes:
Published by Yukta Karvir

More info:

Published by: Yukta Karvir on Aug 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/30/2011

pdf

text

original

 
“Free” is the word which attracts attention of very individual butworking for free is not every one’s cup of tea. I believe that everyindividual has his own needs to satisfy and in this world of moneynothing can be achieved without a penny in hand. To satisfy our dailyneeds we need money so why not politicians? They do have their needs to be satisfied. Without money no one cansurvive as nothing called FREE is available.Good salary attracts good, passionate and intelligent people to work inany field. As corporate field attracts most of the youth because of itspay package so why not political field should offer a good pay andattract the youth which can create a change I our system.
Reasons why politicians should be paid more:
Obviously, in the United States, being a politician is a very low paid job,and attracts only those who are unfortunate enough to have not hadaccess to education. The most recent piece of evidence I have for thisobservation is the following quote from Republican HouseRepresentative Shimkus, who called clean energy and climatelegislation the “largest assault on democracy and freedom in thiscountry I’ve ever lived through” and claimed that he feared passage of this law more than war and terrorism!! The only was to prevent the proliferation of this nonsensical drivel isto up the pay scale for politicians to attract more intelligent types intothe job. Politicians should be paid for resultsBy Iain PearsPublished: May 1 2009 12:26 | last updated: May 1 2009 12:26Amidst all the huffing and puffing about MPs’ expenses, little attentionhas been given to the issue of how to manipulate their pay structure toensure better performance. This is surprising, considering thatpoliticians have been obsessed for the past 30 years with using theway people are paid to cajole the rest of the country to work harder.Governments, Thatcherite or New Labour, have started with the ideathat all people need to be forced to work. The panoply of the “NewManagerialism” – assessments, inspections, sanctions, league tables,promotions, incentives and bonuses – has been deployed to align self-interest with the interests of employers. The techniques have not been used on politicians themselves, but thecurrent fuss provides the opportunity to remedy that. As I disapproveof managerialism, it would be perverse (although highly satisfying) torecommend subjecting our politicians to the coarse regime they haveso cheerfully thrust upon everyone else. But pay and conditions doaffect the way people work, so it is right to consider ways in which we
 
might breed a better MP. Certainly there is a need. The Commons failsdismally to hold the executive to account. This is a pity. When youmeet them, MPs are perfectly decent people. But they are demoralised– fiddling expenses is a classic displacement activity, which the privatesector recognises as a sign of trouble.So how should the pay structure be changed to restore MPs’effectiveness? This, of course, was not an issue when the job wasunpaid, the entire British Empire could be governed with a handful of new laws every year, and those MPs not already wealthy had enoughtime to earn their living. But as the government’s geographical remithas shrunk, so its activity has increased. Parliament is now deluged bynew bills. MPs are also expected to be interested in their constituents,a novel idea introduced by the Liberals in the 1960s. Being an MP hasbecome a full-time job and the electorate, having been lectured aboutworking hard for so long, now expects the same rules to apply topoliticians. This has had disastrous effects. The livelihood of an MP is,after all, not very secure. Turnover is high, security low. A highproportion gets the boot every five years and find, when they do returnto the outside world, that their previous career is in ruins. The dayswhen Conservatives slipped into directorships and Labor MPs returnedto their unions have vanished. Under the pressure of full-time MP, theirprofessional skills have withered. And nobody thinks that a namelesspolitician who cannot even stay elected is of much use. Notsurprisingly, those who do get in are desperate not to be chucked outagain. This requires slavish obedience to the party machines, leavinglittle space for the back-bench rebel and still less for the old“Commons man”. The critical mistakes of both the current Labourgovernment and the last Conservative one were at least partly due tothis. The poll tax that ruined Margaret Thatcher, and theIraq war that weakened Tony Blair, should have been stopped in theCommons but too many MPs voted against their consciences in theirown self-interest. The problem is that MPs draw a salary when they arein the Commons and lose it when they are ejected by the electorate. This applies normal conditions to a job that is very far from normal. Itgives an overwhelming incentive not to rock the boat, and thus toperform badly. In the jargon, it de-incentives, and is thus structurallydysfunctional; accordingly, that salary should be smoothed out. After acertain period, MPs should be guaranteed a full salary for 20 years,even if they lose a subsequent election; this would return them to ablessed state of financial independence from party diktat. If they aredefeated, they could serve out their term in the House of Lords, thusproviding a simple solution to the reform of that institution as well.
 
Secondly, there is no promotion structure – long recognised in humanresources departments as producing a dull and unresponsiveworkforce. Why do something if no-one notices? An MP eithervegetates or becomes a minister. So, bonuses should be offered forworking on committees, asking questions that get proper replies andintroducing amendments that actually amend something. Pay could bedocked for toadying at Prime Minister’s Questions. There should be nosecond home allowance, to discourage fraternization with theelectorate; MPs are supposed to be looking after constituents’ interestsat Westminster, not at home.MPs’ salaries would be fixed at a decent level for a three-quarter time job and, rather than being prohibited from taking outside work (whichwould make them more dependent on the party), they would beobliged to do so. As they have created an economy where much of thepopulation has to juggle several jobs to make ends meet, they shouldbe required to do the same. This would keep them in touch with reallife and simultaneously pressure them to limit the amount of legislation. Pay rises would reflect increases in the country as a whole,not among “top civil servants”, and would be averaged out over anumber of years to make them consider the long-term interests of thecountry. In a recession, salaries would automatically fall. To limit thecosts, a portion of the salary would be determined by how much MPsmanage to cut government spending. This would encourage a greaterwillingness to scrutinize expensive legislation, rather than passing it onthe nod. Considering the huge costs MPs could cut in only a few hoursof frenzied voting, the whole package could end up reducing theoverall cost of government and the country would, in addition, get amuch more independent Commons. As for the MPs, they would be ableto stop rooting around for little extras and not only win back theaffection of the electorate but also regain their self-respect – whichtheir cringing attempts to justify their little fiddles suggest is sorelylacking
Eligibility
Article 84 of the Constitution sets the principle qualifications one mustmeet to be eligible to the office of the Prime Minister. A Prime Ministermust be:A citizen of Indiashould be a member of the LokSabha or RajyaSabha.If a person is elected prime minister who is not a member neither inLokSabha nor RajyaSabha then he must become a member inLokSabha or in RajyaSabha within six months of 25 years of age (in thecase of a seat in the House of the People) or above 30 years of age (inthe case of a seat in the Council of States.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->