The Sensible Centre

[wayneL]

Every party I've ever investigated has some sort of a deal breaker, if not a deal breaker for me something I think it will be a deal breaker for the general public.

In this organisation I haven't been able to find a deal breaker, even if there are there certain things I may have reservations about.

of course it's easy to be good will to men and singing kumbaya if you have no prospect of power. I've been involved with parties that have radically changed once there is prospect of power, so there's that.

Additionally I think the said to space is rather fractioned off and splintered at the moment, so I think it would be good if all of the centrist type folks got together in a single party...

There's a ton of work to do here but maybe, hopefully, it could be a platform to work from and form a viable new force in Australian politics.

One can live in hope.

 

[basilio]

You don't think the proposition that all Members of Parliament be paid $56k a year might be a deal breaker ?
It would effectively take Parlimentary representation back to the days when only Gentlemen of Independent means were able to be Parliamentarians. Landed Gentry, Rich industrialists and so on.

The point of paying members of parliament a reasonable wage was enabling a broad section of the community to be represented. 56k a year isn't with a bulls roar of that figure.

 

[wayneL]

You don't think the proposition that all Members of Parliament be paid $56k a year might be a deal breaker ?
It would effectively take Parlimentary representation back to the days when only Gentlemen of Independent means were able to be Parliamentarians. Landed Gentry, Rich industrialists and so on.

The point of paying members of parliament a reasonable wage was enabling a broad section of the community to be represented. 56k a year isn't with a bulls roar of that figure.

I agree.

But I think that the practical realities will change that policy, if there is ever any prospect of power. It's a little bit of a hook in my opinion.

However I do think that some of their other policies on public sector pay do have merit.

 

[wayneL]

IOW, it's one of those things that I might say is an area of concern and/or disagreement, but not a deal-breaker.

 

[dutchie]

This could be a breath of fresh air that the silent majority is looking for.

The way our societies, around the world, are headed, we definitely need some change.

Good thread Wayne.

 

[sptrawler]

You don't think the proposition that all Members of Parliament be paid $56k a year might be a deal breaker ?
It would effectively take Parlimentary representation back to the days when only Gentlemen of Independent means were able to be Parliamentarians. Landed Gentry, Rich industrialists and so on.

The point of paying members of parliament a reasonable wage was enabling a broad section of the community to be represented. 56k a year isn't with a bulls roar of that figure.

One would assume, that would be changed to make it a sensible income, maybe it is discussion starting point. better that than $200k

 

[macca]

Most people I know are happy to pay a federal pollie at least $150k because it is a high pressure job and your job security is non existent.

However, everyone agrees that the Super set up is not acceptable, far too generous even after toning it down a few years ago

 

[wayneL]

It is a bit of an unquantifiable impossibility, but would be really cool to somehow link politicians performance to their pay.

I'm in favour of paying well for politicians to attract the best candidates, in theory. In my view ministers should be paid higher than the head bureaucrats of their departments.

Pay should reflect the sacrifice taken in order to campaign, lose their career, and then then re-establish their career post politics.

This of course is done under the table by various means, but really should be above board and out in the open in my opinion.

I am also highly offended by public sector employees getting a much higher superannuation contribution than private sector employees... notwithstanding my general objections to how superannuation is administered at present.

 

[SirRumpole]

Most people I know are happy to pay a federal pollie at least $150k because it is a high pressure job and your job security is non existent.

However, everyone agrees that the Super set up is not acceptable, far too generous even after toning it down a few years ago

Some twits can occupy safe seats for as long as they want to, so job security varies, but if they do their jobs properly then $150k is not unreasonable. When people spend half the time out of the country for personal reasons like a certain George Christiansen that's when you have to look at whether they are worth the money.

 

[wayneL]

Some twits can occupy safe seats for as long as they want to, so job security varies, but if they do their jobs properly then $150k is not unreasonable. When people spend half the time out of the country for personal reasons like a certain George Christiansen that's when you have to look at whether they are worth the money.

This is where Swiss style direct democracy may be useful. The Swiss, via a petition, can initiate the removal of their local member at any time and replace them, for any reason.

 

[basilio]

I don't think anyone begrudges politicians getting a fair wage. The details are discussable .

However it is very disappointing to see a "Sensible Centre" Party getting it so, so wrong by proposing a remuneration structure for political leaders that bears no resemblance to reality. The website offers an extremely detailed set of policy platforms so that suggests substantial thought. But this issue makes me wonder at the practicality of their Steering Committee and their capacity to recognise and call out total bollocks when the see it.

If the figure is a "hook" to get people in then (Waynes suggestion) frankly those are the last people I would want to try and have a rational debate with.

 

[wayneL]

It's a minor policy point bas.

Remuneration of politicians is not a substanrive issue in the running a country. The important thing is policy as it effects business at all levels and individuals at all levels.

At present the engine room of the economy, the middle class and SMEs are getting screwed big time.

Big challenge as I see it is in turbo charging that sector while also giving due support to those above and below.

I think it's possible, but will take balls of steel. Perhaps politicians not in it for the remuneration may just have the wherewithal to grow the requisite cajones.

Don't know, just thinking on the run here.

 

[wayneL]

And FWIW, it is an interesting agenda shared by the sensible centre, coming from the indigenous community themselves.

Perhaps could have posted this on a more relevant thread but thought maybe the context would be better here

https://empoweredcommunities.org.au/

 

[sptrawler]

I don't think anyone begrudges politicians getting a fair wage. The details are discussable .

However it is very disappointing to see a "Sensible Centre" Party getting it so, so wrong by proposing a remuneration structure for political leaders that bears no resemblance to reality. The website offers an extremely detailed set of policy platforms so that suggests substantial thought. But this issue makes me wonder at the practicality of their Steering Committee and their capacity to recognise and call out total bollocks when the see it.

If the figure is a "hook" to get people in then (Waynes suggestion) frankly those are the last people I would want to try and have a rational debate with.

Teachers get paid reletively $hit loads more than they used to, because it is now a degree, it doesn't follow we have better outcomes IMO.
The last thing you want, is a room full of affluent ex public servant hacks who have the gift of the gab, wanting a superannuation boost, high jacking the debate before it starts.
It is about finding the centre and it isn't in the silver spoon circle, we already have three parties full of that.