Tynwald members get pay rise

[A fool and his money.....]

8 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This:-

It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If exactly half of our full time workforce can live on £35k or less, then so can our MHKs.

Respectfully suggest you Google “ median average “ to see how it is calculated.

Respectfully, I can tell you that I don't need to Google what median means.

I could respectfully suggest, that if you are going to publicly question someone's understanding of a concept, it might be an idea to make sure that you understand it yourself.

Thanks to Wrighty and others for setting you straight.

[The Phantom]

18 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

In my opinion MHKs are drastically overpaid already. I think most of us agree that we have at least our fair share of useless politicians. I think that's the reason - the salary attracts too many of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

I would argue that the most important attribute a politician needs is a concern for the good of the people they represent, someone who wants to do some good for the island and its people. You can't buy that - it's not something that someone can develop if you pay them £70k per year- it needs to be something intrinsic, something that they want to do.

According to government's own figures, the median wage on the island is around £35k, half that of an MHK. 

It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If exactly half of our full time workforce can live on £35k or less, then so can our MHKs. There is absolutely no compelling reason to pay them any more.

I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that paying more brings more talent to the job. What it does do is bring more greed to the job, and we've got more than enough greedy half-wits in the house as it is.

Why not give it a try? £35k max from the next election.

 

But how would Daffers afford a brand new EV on that salary?

[Declan]

52 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

The reforms in 2021 were designed to reduce the ‘block vote’ by reducing the number of MHKs being paid extra to work in departments. So there is very little collective responsibility outside of CoMin now, and even there a Minister is allowed to vote against on a pre-stated position.

There is a presumption that everything government (CoMin) puts forward should be challenged, but my experience over 2 years has been that most of the votes are pretty routine and for things we agree on (sanctions, legislation etc) so if that makes me a nodding dog, so be it. But the only ‘power’ CoMin has over me is to fire me from IOMPO so I’d lose the 5% uplift - which I would be quite happy to lose if it meant voting against something I disagreed with.

I suppose a high starting salary might make it easier to risk losing the uplift and enable for independent voting. Someone on 75k losing 5% of their salary might have to forgo a second holiday, someone on 20k might have to delay a rent payment. Though Parkinson's Law probably applies. 

 

 

[Declan]

18 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

It's very simple as far as I'm concerned. If exactly half of our full time workforce can live on £35k or less, then so can our MHKs. There is absolutely no compelling reason to pay them any more.

 

That's faulty reasoning. Many of the under 35k will be living at home with parents, or receiving benefits to top up their income.  Others will be in relationships where their partner earns more. 

It's a pretty tight budget for a single person on 35k purchasing a home here. 

Also nobody's going to stand who can earn 40k in the Private Sector or who aspires to in the forthcoming 5 years. You'll get a few people in their 60s winding down their career, and maybe a few 30 year olds will do one term and quit. But no one in their prime would limit their earnings like that. 

[Omobono]

12 minutes ago, Declan said:

I suppose a high starting salary might make it easier to risk losing the uplift and enable for independent voting. Someone on 75k losing 5% of their salary might have to forgo a second holiday, someone on 20k might have to delay a rent payment. Though Parkinson's Law probably applies. 

 

 

if the post office was a proper company answerable to shareholders , you would have had a vote of confidence  called  for the Chairman and board   to go , the post office is a mess  far too many managers and totally out of step with the requirements of a modern logistic operation ,

given the post office has had this huge monopoly for years they have sat back become lazy    and let everyone else come in and steal their business ,

[A fool and his money.....]

17 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I worked out in my head earlier (before responding to a FB post) that I currently have around 8 part-time jobs as an MHK, so your desire to cut my salary by 50% has fallen on deaf ears.

Yes, the pay is attractive, but it's not what motivates most to stand. You could double or halve it and you would probably get similar candidates - i.e. people prepared to do their best for others and attract daily vilification from armchair warriors.

But you can't halve mine, I need a 500bhp V8 before I'm too old.

Firstly, fair play to you for responding. I've been very critical of you in the past, and I think it's fair to say our politics is worlds apart. You seem happy to engage with the electorate though, even on a subject like this (which most would avoid) and I respect that.

What you seem to be suggesting though is that halving an MHK's salary would have no effect on the candidates standing (or at least not the most that you claim are not motivated by the salary)

In which case, why on earth don't we do it?

We'd get the same people doing the same job - they would be paid well (half the island's full time workforce survive on less)

And we'd save almost a million pounds per year. It's a no brainer!

I hear you on the V8 though and have some sympathy - just not sure why I should pay for yours as well as mine.

[A fool and his money.....]

28 minutes ago, Declan said:

That's faulty reasoning. Many of the under 35k will be living at home with parents, or receiving benefits to top up their income.  Others will be in relationships where their partner earns more. 

It's a pretty tight budget for a single person on 35k purchasing a home here. 

Also nobody's going to stand who can earn 40k in the Private Sector or who aspires to in the forthcoming 5 years. You'll get a few people in their 60s winding down their career, and maybe a few 30 year olds will do one term and quit. But no one in their prime would limit their earnings like that. 

I'm not sure it is faulty reasoning. We pay MHK's £70k regardless of whether they're living at home with their parents, or whether they're in a relationship regardless of what their partner earns.

Similarity I'm not sure the half of the full time workforce earning less than £35k have these factors taken into account either when deciding their pay either. How many of them may change their situation if they were paid more?

Anyone you ask will have their own reasoning for why they should get paid what they do or more. The fact is that MHK's represent the people. If half of those people working full time are paid less than half of what they are, then they don't represent them very well. They don't share the same financial pressures, they don't live in the same world.

Perhaps then something may be done about the fact that a single person on £35k can't afford a home here. It was a priority for all before the election, yet nothing has happened - I wonder why?

I'd argue that if someone was put off from standing because they can earn £40k in the private sector then they are not the type of person we need. We need people who are in it for the greater good, not for the good of their bank balance. If £35k is not enough to live on then they're in an Idea position to address why. I'm sure progress would be a lot swifter, and half the full time workforce would benefit too.

[Declan]

Who would do the job if half the population can earn more elsewhere without half the island screaming abuse at you? I'd say -

• Those that can't get a job paying more.
• The independantly wealthy
• Josem.

This business of the greater good is a mirage. They all are Egotists who think they are acting in the greater good, they wouldn't think they were suitable for the job otherwise. And they probably all try to do their best even the ones mainly in it for money or status think they might as well do their best.

[woolley]

12 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

Ballots for strike action require a super-majority because, according to the right, a simple majority gives the union no legitimacy.

Can’t have it both ways.

And that’s before we consider whether a simple majority offers suitable protection to minority groups. There’s a reason why Northern Ireland effectively requires a super-majority.

But strikes are a pain in the arse, so that's fair enough. Voting should be compulsory in strike ballots too, so that you don't just get the nutter extremists voting and pulling everyone out.

Not quite sure what you mean about Northern Ireland. If there was more than 50% for the change and it was withheld do you think that would be taken lying down?

[Ringy Rose]

12 hours ago, woolley said:

Not quite sure what you mean about Northern Ireland. If there was more than 50% for the change and it was withheld do you think that would be taken lying down?

Legislative changes in Northern Ireland require cross-community agreement- the unionists and the nationalists both have to agree.

 

12 hours ago, woolley said:

But strikes are a pain in the arse, so that's fair enough

But Brexit wasn’t?!?

[woolley]

9 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

But Brexit wasn’t?!?

Of course not.

[Stu Peters]

22 hours ago, Omobono said:

if the post office was a proper company answerable to shareholders , you would have had a vote of confidence  called  for the Chairman and board   to go , the post office is a mess  far too many managers and totally out of step with the requirements of a modern logistic operation ,

given the post office has had this huge monopoly for years they have sat back become lazy    and let everyone else come in and steal their business ,

That’s one interpretation. It’s completely wrong on every level of course, but…

[Numbnuts]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

That’s one interpretation. It’s completely wrong on every level of course, but…

Why is it wrong. Genuine question …

[Blade Runner]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

That’s one interpretation. It’s completely wrong on every level of course, but…

Stu, Are you really sure about that?

I can't in all honesty, say you are saying that statement without crossing your fingers..............

[Two-lane]

3 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

That’s one interpretation. It’s completely wrong on every level of course, but…

Whenever I read anything about IoM Post, it is about the number of staff being cut, or the number of parcels or letters being handled is reduced.

Has the salary of the managers been reduced to reflect the smaller business?