At some point in the past you talked of matching MP’s salaries to universal credit, providing a cost to overpaying themselves and an incentive to keep benefits at a decent level. Is that something you’re still in favour of?
I guess the lower the pay, the more susceptible to bribes, but I don’t know whether that’s ever been mapped out to find a price of integrity. As you say, we won’t eliminate corruption completely, but there might be pay scales where it’s more or less likely.
This is where it gets tricky inasmuch as I’m not sure what I think.
I still think the principle is ethically sound — seriously … peg MPs’ income to UC and just watch UC soar to a level that means a life of dignity for the unemployed!
But …
For MPs living in wealthier regions … where the cost of living is higher … that may not be so equitable.
On the other hand, if UC is raised to account for that then people living in poorer regions might have less incentive to seek employment because their standard of living is commensurately higher: if you can live for a week in Hartlepool on half (or even less) than can the unemployed in London then you’ve got a lot more disposable income with which to buy that nice, new home cinema TV — yes, it’s an exaggerated example (in reality, if you’re unemployed, it doesn’t matter where you live, you’ve barely got enough to eat under the current system, let alone save). but it illustrates the point of regional wealth differences meaning there isn’t a single solution.
So, much as the idea appeals to me for ethical reasons, the more I look at the possible unintended side-effects, the less certain I am of its practicability.
On the other other hand, however, setting it at a level that allows those living in wealthier parts of the nation to live comfortably would mean that those from poorer regions would be disproportionately wealthy vis-à-vis their constituency … which potentially results in other undesirable behaviours.
Perhaps rather than pegging it to directly to levels of UC, the equation should include it in some way, but also reflect average earnings?
I don’t know. The more you look at it, the more complex it gets and you have to start examining regional discrepancies in greater detail.
If UC payments are universal then those in poorer regions are disproportionately enabled compared to those living in areas of higher cost of living … and you can see how hose in poorer regions might feel that the unemployed are freeloaders, because they have a standard of living that is comparatively high. Consider how often you hear from the more irate in the ‘regions’ that Londoners are an out of touch elite … as though there weren’t horrific levels of poverty to be found here — Tower Hamlets is as far from Westminster as Sunderland when it comes to standard of living … and there are parts of Islington you wouldn’t want to live in any more than your would Feltham or Hounslow … but to people who know nothing about London, it’s a sink of depravity where the streets are paved with gold extracted from the tooth fillings of hard-working salt-of-the-earth folk like themselves.
If you start to look at rebalancing payments on the basis of local cost-of-living then you’re looking at keeping the poorer regions poorer. But, if you look at redistributing wealth, so that the poorer regions are levelled up then you’re back to the problem of UC not covering the cost of living and needing to be raised again and around and around you go in circles, looking at how to make it equitable in the meantime: as regional standards improve, so the level of UC needs to be rebalanced, so … if MPs’ remuneration is to be pegged to it … what do you set it at in the first place?
I suspect that the formula should be linked to average earnings including UC rather than on UC specifically.
Find the constituency with the lowest cost of living. Take the average (modal/mean/median? Why?) income (including UC). Base MPs’ remuneration on that and then work something out that reflects the percentage higher cost of living in each constituency and give that to the local MP(s) as a cost-of-living bonus — that way, all MPs have a wherewithal that is, relative to where they live, identical in buying power.
Except that we no longer live in a world where people are obliged to purchase locally and we’re back to square one: if my local cost-of-living bonus is £1,000 pcm, I can buy a lot more from Amazon than can someone with a bonus of £250 and we’re in the inverse position of the wealthier your region, the more likely you are to be unemployed in front of a home cinema, as it were.
And, before you know it, you’re not looking at how to rebalance the electoral system to make it more representative but welfare reform, wealth redistribution … and, at that point, you might as well become an MP yourself.
So, I really don’t know but, as I said, some sort of formula based upon an average of earnings (including UC) and add bonuses/top-ups that reflect regional differences in cost of living might be a place to start, even if imperfect for the reasons outlined,
Perhaps you, or someone else, can come up with something?
As an aside, I’ve long been of the opinion that everyone should be paid the same irrespective of the job they perform though: if you can’t bring your product or service to market without a janitor to keep facilities in order then the janitor is as vital to your business as the CEO and should logically, therefore, be equally recompensed for their time and service, no?
But, again, we’re straying well beyond electoral reform at this point and, really, I’m not sure that’s desirable at this stage.
I’m not so convinced that it makes less sense without parties than with
| On reflection, yes, I’d agree with that
You’re absolutely right about the potential for confusion though.
The idea of a single column, onto which you stick your choices by peeling them off another sheet is the simplest approach I can think of that allows ranking and eliminates the risk of ranking two candidates equally (or at least reduces it anyway ¹ ).
Once you add in negative votes though, it becomes more complex: people need to have it explained to them that one votes in opposite directions, with favourite at the top and least favourite at the bottom (just like ordinary ranking) but working towards the middle in order of like/dislike less, such that they don’t mistakenly think that they start with their least favourite at ‘-1’ and work their way towards their least disliked candidate at minus <whatever> in the same way as they put their favourite candidate at ‘+9’ and work down to their least liked candidate above the zero line.
It’s not hideously complex but it does introduce more room for error than in a simple ranking exercise.
So, much as I like the idea, it may not be sufficiently risk-free to merit insisting on it — maybe a few trials with focus groups might be in order 😉
—
¹ Yes, people might try and change their minds by sticking a different one on top, but …. unless you can think of some way to prevent it … that’s just gonna have to count as a spoiled ballot at that point, as far as I’m concerned.
