Upgrade UK before its too late

[Pat494]

If you want better candidates to apply for a job, you offer more money. It's ludicrous that someone running a bank or FTSE 100 company is paid 10 times or more what someone running the country is paid. So what do you attract with a salary like that? People who are either power hungry (not what you want in charge), and people that are good politicians but not good businessman/intellects/people.

Our chancellor of the exchequer...is his background as an intellecetual powerhouse Professor of economics from Cambridge, OXford etc, or a leading economist at GoldmanSachs, JPMorgan etc? No, he's a guy with a 2:1 in History and worked previously in a data entry job, and worked in Selfridges. It's a joke!

In charge of health, someone who has worked as a leading Doctor for many years, or managed hospitals for years, nope we've just got a civil servant.

In charge of Education, another academic who has studied learning methods and published in the field, someone who has developed syllabus, run schools, or at least someone who has actually taught children? No, we have a journalist.

Ok so even if you can't get the best and the brightest, you should at least be able to get someone who is part qualified. Why do we not have a renowned Professor of economics in charge? Because the salary isn't worth it, and he would have to waste his time campaigning for this sacred thing you call democracy, which he may not even be good at. He may be a terrible politician, but brilliant economist. Who do you want for the role?


As for your last sentence, do I think democracy would be improved. You've missed the point entirely. The aim isn't to improve democracy. The aim is to improve the country. It's an illusion you've been brought up on that 'democracy=good'. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Democracy is a tool that we use, nothing more. It doesn't need to be improved, and it always has a time limit, 4 years/5years/10 years it's still democracy. And again you're under the illusion we actualyl have a democracy, which we don't. What we have is closer to a republic than a democracy.

Have to disagree with you there. It desperately needs improving as evidenced by the state of this country. The problem is how to get the right people in the right jobs as you point out above and not for huge payouts.
The Arabs and Persians are shedding their blood for that intangible thing called freedom and democracy. I hope they are not as disappointed as many are in the West.
The supposed freedom has invited in as sort of pigsty democracy where crime, sleaze etc flourishes.

 

[Shakone]

Our country has to improve, and so our system of government has to improve. This has come about as a result of our form of democracy. It's the country that needs to improve. So then we either need to change to something other than democracy, or we need to change to a different form of democracy. Which country has a democratic system that is working really well? Which country has a system of rule that is working really well, and what is that system (perhaps we can learn from what is successful).

As for the huge pay to get the best people, it wouldn't be that hard. The amount of money that is spent on reviews and investigations which is mostly wasted could be put to better use. Or you can just cut the number of mps, which also involves cutting their staff, their security, their expenses. Then use that saving to make the job worthwhile.

 

[Pat494]

Our country has to improve, and so our system of government has to improve. This has come about as a result of our form of democracy. It's the country that needs to improve. So then we either need to change to something other than democracy, or we need to change to a different form of democracy. Which country has a democratic system that is working really well? Which country has a system of rule that is working really well, and what is that system (perhaps we can learn from what is successful).As for the huge pay to get the best people, it wouldn't be that hard. The amount of money that is spent on reviews and investigations which is mostly wasted could be put to better use. Or you can just cut the number of mps, which also involves cutting their staff, their security, their expenses. Then use that saving to make the job worthwhile.

Well definately NOT the USA's system. Their system has been cobbled togethor over 200+ years and is hopelessly inadequate imho. Their great rivals used to be Europe. Not much of a challenge as their systems are even more uncompetitive. However now with the BRIC countries challenging they may be forced to change.

I would suggest cutting ALL the MEPs for a start as Brussels produces nothing but rubbish

 

[counter_violent]

In 2008 I spoke about "revolution". As with all things, it's very difficult to pin point where it would start. Middle East and North Africa...hmm whooda thought it !
Still plenty of time for the West to jump on the "revolution" band waggon too.

 

[Shakone]

True CV. I just don't think people in England are unhappy enough ... yet.

 

[neil]

In 2008 I spoke about "revolution". As with all things, it's very difficult to pin point where it would start. Middle East and North Africa...hmm whooda thought it !
Still plenty of time for the West to jump on the "revolution" band waggon too.

Revolution - yep, I can see the royal family on a nice council estate with a nice old age pension or job seekers allowance for the rest of them. Poor old fergie would have to pay off her huge overdraft or take in washing

 

[anley]

The amount of money that is spent on reviews and investigations which is mostly wasted could be put to better use. Or you can just cut the number of mps, which also involves cutting their staff, their security, their expenses. Then use that saving to make the job worthwhile.

That's hard because it's all part of the scam which is to suck as much money out of the private sector and tax payers as possible to keep their bloated bureaucracy running.

If the MPs and others on the public payroll cared even 1% about the people then they'd start to cut waste, cut non-jobs, cut the general bureaucracy but none of them do because turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

A good example of this sucking is when I fought a dangerous parking ticket charge at my local court. It took 3 seperate sittings to sort the matter out. Common sense says it should have been sorted in less than 30 mins.

I lost by the way because I told the truth but that's the first time I've been in court so now I know how to play the game, ie naive people tell the truth, smart people make up a load of (believable) ******** and stand a good chance of winning.

 

[Atilla]

If you want better candidates to apply for a job, you offer more money. It's ludicrous that someone running a bank or FTSE 100 company is paid 10 times or more what someone running the country is paid. So what do you attract with a salary like that? People who are either power hungry (not what you want in charge), and people that are good politicians but not good businessman/intellects/people.

Our chancellor of the exchequer...is his background as an intellecetual powerhouse Professor of economics from Cambridge, OXford etc, or a leading economist at GoldmanSachs, JPMorgan etc? No, he's a guy with a 2:1 in History and worked previously in a data entry job, and worked in Selfridges. It's a joke!

In charge of health, someone who has worked as a leading Doctor for many years, or managed hospitals for years, nope we've just got a civil servant.

In charge of Education, another academic who has studied learning methods and published in the field, someone who has developed syllabus, run schools, or at least someone who has actually taught children? No, we have a journalist.

Ok so even if you can't get the best and the brightest, you should at least be able to get someone who is part qualified. Why do we not have a renowned Professor of economics in charge? Because the salary isn't worth it, and he would have to waste his time campaigning for this sacred thing you call democracy, which he may not even be good at. He may be a terrible politician, but brilliant economist. Who do you want for the role?


As for your last sentence, do I think democracy would be improved. You've missed the point entirely. The aim isn't to improve democracy. The aim is to improve the country. It's an illusion you've been brought up on that 'democracy=good'. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Democracy is a tool that we use, nothing more. It doesn't need to be improved, and it always has a time limit, 4 years/5years/10 years it's still democracy. And again you're under the illusion we actualyl have a democracy, which we don't. What we have is closer to a republic than a democracy.

Agree with a lot what you say but if this was true - then the best football team would be the one that cost the most and the best candidates would surely be in place already as how much more can politicians - bankers and councillors and many other people get employed in the service of the public?

Thus, applying the pricing rule simply doesn't work. The free market needs to apply this rule. That is, pay and reward should be awarded by an exernal body with no conflict of interest.

Not internal bodies with vested interests.

Where you have lots of money you have greed and power plays?

 

[spreader_legger]

I say bring forth the Ancien Regime :clap:

When you have a party in charge for 4 years, and then they have to win another vote, you're basically sayign that you want the country to be run for short term results and long term doesn't matter, that's the next guys problem. Build up huge debts, because we won't have to pay them off in 4 years mentality. Until you change that, we'll get crap politics.

 

[Shakone]

Agree with a lot what you say but if this was true - then the best football team would be the one that cost the most and the best candidates would surely be in place already as how much more can politicians - bankers and councillors and many other people get employed in the service of the public?

In statistical tests looking at success in football, the most significant factor was the
salary. It's not the only factor of course, but if you look at who has won the premiership, I bet you'd fine in recent years it's been won by Chelsea and Man United and I bet you'd find they have had the highest wage bill in recent years. Now maybe Man City will be up there or catching fast. I think Barcelona have an even bigger wage bill.

I agree with you about the corruption, greed and power plays, I'm just saying that if chancellor of the exchequer were a job paying 5million a year, and you didn't need to be a lying politician to get the job, then the standard of applicant would be a lot higher than a guy whose biggest job was in data entry or working in selfridges. I realise it is just a dream, to have intelligent qualified people doing jobs in government.

 

[spreader_legger]

Not sure about that.

Politics should ideally be a vocation, where the MP's are servants to their constituents. I know that probably in reality, this may not be the case.

Increasing wages, perks etc. would probably do more to attract the greedy (perhaps the more skillful at robbing the pubilc purse)

In reality, I really do not feel all that sorry for our good old parliamentarians. There are also other perks to consider ... i.e. Tony seems to have been doing pretty well out of it recently, not to mention all the backhanders (or benefits in kind) that undoubtedly take place

I reckon that increased benefits will only have the effect of attracting the unscrupulous. Maybe we should outsource the function over to India

In statistical tests looking at success in football, the most significant factor was the
salary. It's not the only factor of course, but if you look at who has won the premiership, I bet you'd fine in recent years it's been won by Chelsea and Man United and I bet you'd find they have had the highest wage bill in recent years. Now maybe Man City will be up there or catching fast. I think Barcelona have an even bigger wage bill.

I agree with you about the corruption, greed and power plays, I'm just saying that if chancellor of the exchequer were a job paying 5million a year, and you didn't need to be a lying politician to get the job, then the standard of applicant would be a lot higher than a guy whose biggest job was in data entry or working in selfridges. I realise it is just a dream, to have intelligent qualified people doing jobs in government.

 

[Atilla]

In statistical tests looking at success in football, the most significant factor was the
salary. It's not the only factor of course, but if you look at who has won the premiership, I bet you'd fine in recent years it's been won by Chelsea and Man United and I bet you'd find they have had the highest wage bill in recent years. Now maybe Man City will be up there or catching fast. I think Barcelona have an even bigger wage bill.

I agree with you about the corruption, greed and power plays, I'm just saying that if chancellor of the exchequer were a job paying 5million a year, and you didn't need to be a lying politician to get the job, then the standard of applicant would be a lot higher than a guy whose biggest job was in data entry or working in selfridges. I realise it is just a dream, to have intelligent qualified people doing jobs in government.

Once again I agree with what you have said here but would would like to qualify that a football player has to deliver results and performance on a weekly basis every season under very highly flood-lit visibility.

How long would any player last if he didn't deliver week on week out?

In contrast executive management receive pensions, bonuses and guaranteed bonus and golden hand shake and share options (which are optional) as part of routine contract. Even if share price and capital valuation of a company goes down these people receive rewards.

I would state that a benchmark to productivity or share price should be established and reward be set to some proportion.

I would also add that 80% of bonus goes to 20% in general. 20% gets distributed to bulk of 80% staff who I would add do most of the work.

There is clearly a skewed distortion and imbalance - which then feeds into rest of society.

IN MY OPINION THIS DISPARITY IN ADVANCE NATIONS IS A SINGLE CAUSE OF STATE FAILURE LEADING TO REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC ADVANCE.

Poor people are kept poor and rich people are kept rich through no fault or ability of their own. Victorians - starved the working popullation and claimed they were lazy and didn't work hard. This was because they were ill fed, under nourished and lived in squaller working 18-20 hours a week. Not much has changed really.


With respect to improving the system much talk will be heard about the political voting system. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12475108

How can we make a system better than it is?

My leading objective in all aspects of life is to make it as fair as possible. Same goes for industry and rewarding ability.

 

[spreader_legger]

Agreed!

Politicians should be paid in proportion to how well they can rip the public off & develop personal buisness relationships

Oh wait! They do that already

Once again I agree with what you have said here but would would like to qualify that a football player has to deliver results and performance on a weekly basis every season under very highly flood-lit visibility.

How long would any player last if he didn't deliver week on week out?

In contrast executive management receive pensions, bonuses and guaranteed bonus and golden hand shake and share options (which are optional) as part of routine contract. Even if share price and capital valuation of a company goes down these people receive rewards.

I would state that a benchmark to productivity or share price should be established and reward be set to some proportion.

I would also add that 80% of bonus goes to 20% in general. 20% gets distributed to bulk of 80% staff who I would add do most of the work.

There is clearly a skewed distortion and imbalance - which then feeds into rest of society.

IN MY OPINION THIS DISPARITY IN ADVANCE NATIONS IS A SINGLE CAUSE OF STATE FAILURE LEADING TO REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC ADVANCE.

Poor people are kept poor and rich people are kept rich through no fault or ability of their own. Victorians - starved the working popullation and claimed they were lazy and didn't work hard. This was because they were ill fed, under nourished and lived in squaller working 18-20 hours a week. Not much has changed really.


With respect to improving the system much talk will be heard about the political voting system. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12475108

How can we make a system better than it is?

My leading objective in all aspects of life is to make it as fair as possible. Same goes for industry and rewarding ability.

 

[Pat494]

In statistical tests looking at success in football, the most significant factor was the
salary. It's not the only factor of course, but if you look at who has won the premiership, I bet you'd fine in recent years it's been won by Chelsea and Man United and I bet you'd find they have had the highest wage bill in recent years. Now maybe Man City will be up there or catching fast. I think Barcelona have an even bigger wage bill.

I agree with you about the corruption, greed and power plays, I'm just saying that if chancellor of the exchequer were a job paying 5million a year, and you didn't need to be a lying politician to get the job, then the standard of applicant would be a lot higher than a guy whose biggest job was in data entry or working in selfridges. I realise it is just a dream, to have intelligent qualified people doing jobs in government.

The bigger salaries will attract better players but
doubling a player's wages won't make a doubly better player.

The average wage slave does an 8 hour day whatever he is paid.

The whole point of not having the few at the top raking in 10xs, maybe 20xs or more than the average doesn't make a happy TEAM. The resentment will sour the efforts. The Middle East is a testament to the unfair and unequal treatment of the many by the few, for too long and look at the results !! Disaster.

 

[spreader_legger]

It is totally reasonable for a public servant to be compensated adequately for his efforts.

However, one should not enter this function for the distinct purpose of making as much personal financial gain as possible. Just like one would not expect a social service worker to enter the field purely for such selfish reasons.

Execution of policies etc. is undertaken by the civil service ... the efficiency with which policies are implemented has nothing to do with the clowns sitting in Westminster (perhaps they should be paid for attendence just like the previous administration did for students attending highschool & we wonder why the country is on its knees )

How do you qualify successful policy results? GDP growth? Unemployment? Mortality rates? ... benchmarking MP's performance based on these figures would be an administrative nightmare & open the floodgates for figure massaging.

Then you also have to take the intertemporal nature of decisions made into account. Simply articificially inflating the economy over the 5 years one is in office, could result in even greater short-termism that exists at present & I suppose does replicate bankers' bonus structure. Is this really the way we want to be heading?

The bigger salaries will attract better players but
doubling a player's wages won't make a doubly better player.

The average wage slave does an 8 hour day whatever he is paid.

The whole point of not having the few at the top raking in 10xs, maybe 20xs or more than the average doesn't make a happy TEAM. The resentment will sour the efforts. The Middle East is a testament to the unfair and unequal treatment of the many by the few, for too long and look at the results !! Disaster.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Lulz @ democracy in UK.

At least the N Africans can get rid of their corrupt leaders. I seem to remember a little protest against an illegal war that was ignored. But they're just soooo far behind us in terms of democracy lol.

 

[RedRenegade]

The UK needs an entire upgrade actually....

Wonder if the protests will start soon in the UK now that North African leaders are getting overthrown

 

[Pat494]

The UK needs an entire upgrade actually....

Wonder if the protests will start soon in the UK now that North African leaders are getting overthrown

There will be trouble once people start losing their jobs.

That Ceo of RBS bank talking on the telly - usual blather of how the banks can't afford to lose these multi - million bonus bums. I would tax their bonuses at 95% and they could sod off if they think their so called huge talents (?) are'nt being pampered enough

Oh gawd - they might tell nanny !

socially aware they ain't

 

[Shakone]

What about reducing the taxes for a company that then has to use that reduction specifically to employ others. That way, although you're reducing the % tax, the government still gets the same amount of total tax in the end, and you've increased employment by some % related to the tax cut, which means less to pay out in benefits.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

They already did something similar wit the Ers NIC break for first 10 employees for new start ups outside of london