Would there be public motivation for taking a razor to politicians state and federal?

[Pessimistic]

Seeing the feds and states seem to be turning on each other for savings.

Pretty sure the public would be all for it.

Bonus would be a reduction in the number of party hangers on spin doctors etc

 

[Pessimistic]

Merry christmas everyone

 

[Bomberboyokay]

No

 

[JoseMourinho]

Yes, these guys get paid more than most other country's pollies. When we have career politicians, it become a huge problem.

 

[Puddy]

Time to implement a asset seizure policy, give them a wage of 39k a year (the average wage in SA) and force them to be CFS volunteers with no 'summer break'. Get rid of the stupid pensions these people get as well.

 

[madmug]

We dont necessarily want to pay our pollies less. After all, we want attract some quality into parliament.

We just dont need so many of the buggers & certainly not the number of hangers on & minders.

Two tiers of Gument is sufficient. Regional Gument & Federal Gument.

 

[The Punter]

Unfortunately you're not starting from scratch. The sheer weight of appointments state governments make to boards, advisory bodies, panels, etc, with their stipends, would be nigh impossible to unravel in one go.

Puddy's suggestion would leave Australia with no elected officials. It would be better to offer them no salary whatsoever.

Remuneration provided to elected officials needs to be simplified in order to promote transparency. Give them a lump sum to spend as they wish on staff, office expenses, travel, their retirement (apart from mandatory superannuation) and anything else broadly relevant to their work, with all details on that spending to be publicly available.

 

[Pessimistic]

Fund the HOR from the purse, but come down heavy on any private funding

Thenfree the senate from any state requirement. Just funded by lobby groups. Let them buy peoples.votes.too.

Then all.the llobbying canbe out in the open. And parliament is truly representative

 

[Goldenblue]

I think we need to look at the perks. They are all on the gravy train and are in it for themselves, such as Bronwyn Bishop and company. Both sides have their noses in the trough and I think it's time we all stood up and said enough is enough!

I also think that once you have been PM you should only then get 5 years of free travel and staff and after that it should be taken back. Five years is long enough IMHO.

I also think that when the economy hits hard, why should the public tighten their belts? The pollies need to do it as well. When pollies are asked about their salaries, they use the old adage of paying peanuts you get monkeys. Well we end up with monkeys anyway. Pollies are paid way too much and have too many perks and yet they are the ones who are happy to tax us more, cut our wages and make us work longer.

The age of entitlement is over and it should apply to politicians too not just the public.

 

[medusala]

Sacking one hundred thousand public servants would be a very good start. Getting rid of a handful of pollies wont make much difference.

 

[The Punter]

Which 100,000? Wouldn't that have a deleterious effect on the Australian economy? Imagine a Grand Final crowd of people going from employed to unemployed, many with families.

It's all well and good to make these suggestions in a vacuum, and Australia has a spending problem, but there are ways of doing things.

 

[medusala]

Which 100,000? Wouldn't that have a deleterious effect on the Australian economy?

No, why would it? Going by the UK experience it would probably be rather positive. Its a no brainer.

Tories sacked huge numbers of public sector workers. All the usual Jew hating worshippers were wheeled out to say what a disaster it would be. Of course it wasn't. Private sector employment increased more than PS jobs lost.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/p...-are-cheering-osbornes-public-sector-job-cull

By 2017, according to the most recent OBR forecast, the government will have cut a further 298,000, bringing the total number lost to 730,000

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/12/private-sector-growth-pushes-employment-to-new-record-high/

Stripping those out and starting from April-June 2010, private sector employment has risen by 853,000 (3.7 per cent) — impressive, but not quite 1 million yet. Meanwhile, public sector employment has been cut by 357,000 (5.9 per cent) and is at its lowest level since 2003.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sacking one hundred thousand public servants would be a very good start. Getting rid of a handful of pollies wont make much difference.

They do that on a regular basis, but they never reduce pollies and hangers on. Surely the same principles apply

The UK has been discussed here. Blaire did massively reduce the number of peers in the house of lords

 

[medusala]

They do that on a regular basis, but they never reduce pollies and hangers on. Surely the same principles apply

The UK has been discussed here. Blaire did massively reduce the number of peers in the house of lords

Australia has reduced the number of public servants by hundreds of thousands?

The ones that could easily be sacked are "special adviser" types. No need for them. Heaps of them straight out of uni, into a staffer role and then a safe seat. Its a big reason why we have so many dud pollies.

I am in furious agreement with you that their numbers should be massively cut.

Also IIRC a UK department (or may have been the Met) had a staggering number employed in its press office. Absurd.

 

[Pessimistic]

Australia has reduced the number of public servants by hundreds of thousands?

The ones that could easily be sacked are "special adviser" types. No need for them. Heaps of them straight out of uni, into a staffer role and then a safe seat. Its a big reason why we have so many dud pollies.

I am in furious agreement with you that their numbers should be massively cut.

Also IIRC a UK department (or may have been the Met) had a staggering number employed in its press office. Absurd.

Theres quite a few discussions on the subject of public servants, who i find to be mostly hard working anyway., and thgey. Would be simply sacked for the type of rorts politicians get up to. One day of car misa use like geoff shaw did for months on end for. Example.

But the discussion is about whether the public would have an appeite for reducing the number of politicians.

 

[The Punter]

One leader did campaign on reducing political staff, then did it when he was elected. He also did the same with taxpayer funded political advertising.

The result was: the electorate came to the conclusion he wasn't doing anything, because no one was employed to shape and disseminate the message, and they weren't spending any government money promoting that message. His government kept his state in surplus when revenues collapsed, and is still the only state to keep in surplus during the recent economic troubles since 2008.

He also reduced the size of the public service.

Thanks for everything, Ted Baillieu.

 

[Pessimistic]

One leader did campaign on reducing political staff, then did it when he was elected. He also did the same with taxpayer funded political advertising.

The result was: the electorate came to the conclusion he wasn't doing anything, because no one was employed to shape and disseminate the message, and they weren't spending any government money promoting that message. His government kept his state in surplus when revenues collapsed, and is still the only state to keep in surplus during the recent economic troubles since 2008.

He also reduced the size of the public service.

Thanks for everything, Ted Baillieu.

Geoff shaw? Public servants would be sacked fot a small fraction of the rorting he did.

Ted kindly helped other states budgets by failing to apply to the feds in the correct manner for a share of federal funding

 

[The Punter]

Medusala made a suggestion, and I said the experience has occurred in Australia. There is little debate that the whole sordid Geoff Shaw affair was mismanaged, but if Australian politics at all levels taught us anything between 2010-2014, it would be "don't win a close election".

Under Daniel Andrews political staff are back to the levels there were under John Brumby. Denis Napthine loosened the taxpayer pursestrings as far as Victorian Government advertising is concerned after Baillieu did exactly what he said he would do in that area.

 

[medusala]

But the discussion is about whether the public would have an appeite for reducing the number of politicians.

Does Tasmania really need 12 senators? I think not.

 

[Maggie5]

Does Tasmania really need 12 senators? I think not.

Gee, hadn't realised they had 12!

 

[Pessimistic]

Does Tasmania really need 12 senators? I think not.

Trade six for an afl team

 

[madmug]

Gee, hadn't realised they had 12!

?

I thought you would know your federal parliament. 12 senators per state was part of the trade off to allow the Federation to form.

I think getting rid of the middle tier of gument, states, would be more important

 

[Maggie5]

?

I thought you would know your federal parliament. 12 senators per state was part of the trade off to allow the Federation to form.

I think getting rid of the middle tier of gument, states, would be more important

Moment of forgetfulness, knew that there were 76, maybe both houses need to be reduced. 226 elected reps seems a lot.
Nah, get of councils.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

If anything federal parliament needs more MPs and Senators. Especially now it's where all the important decisions get made.

 

[Slax]

People want to save money on government scrap local government completely, they serve no purpose except to such funds from the council and push their own agenda rather than what is actually best for the residents.