Panic
Are the members of the Government completely insane?
Not content to award themselves pay rises which are 1) massive, 2) to be introduced in one go instead of being phased in, 3) back-dated to April, and 4) likely to precipitate a wave of astronomical public-service wage demands, now they’re trying to use a technicality to deny the Senate the opportunity to block the bill.
Do they have any idea how desperate this makes them look? Why resort to such heavy-handed tactics when the Senate can only delay the legislation anyway? It adds considerable weight to the argument that an election is imminent and the PLP are frantically trying to feather their nests before being ejected from office.
Ironically, moves like this only make defeat more likely.
Archives By Date
Is it really dirty pool or is it more a case of someone finally getting smart and using the constitution to their own advantage? Just because it reeks of backdoor politics doesn't make it illegal. Looks like your politicians have finally become as you like to say (sophisticated). Just think pay raises for the few in governement and free chicken and mac&chesse for the masses the next time they throw a rally in the park. What more can you ask for???
Posted by charles on 29.06.06 at 14:02
I absolutely agree, Phil. If there's one thing that I'm sure that UBP and PLP supporters alike can agree upon, it's that the PLP government has the most appalling public relations. There can be no doubt that this wholesale pay increase is desperately unpopular, and to resort to trying to avoid the Senate in order to pass the increase looks terrible and incredibly arrogant.
Posted by loki on 29.06.06 at 14:23
The PLP is systematically undermining our democratic systems and governmental effectiveness. This is a particularly hamfisted example, and I am embarrassed for Larry Mussenden.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 29.06.06 at 14:27
Coincidentally the PLP will soon be introducing the Accountability Through Monetization (ATM) Act 2006 which calls for the installation of several electronic teller machines outside Parliament House which permit direct debits against the consolidated fund for approved members.
It is also proposed that standard four digit PIN codes (as they're far too difficult to memorize for our ministers who will inevitably be intoxicated with power from repeated visits) be replaced with reticular scanners in order to improve the dispensing efficiency.
Goodness gracious aren't all of the PLP faithful glad they were able to Make It Happen back in 1998!
Posted by observor on 29.06.06 at 14:31
"Coincidentally the PLP will soon be introducing the Accountability Through Monetization (ATM) Act 2006"
You have to be fucking kidding.
Posted by Banana Republican on 29.06.06 at 14:33
Oy vey ... Banana ... please see this is link ¡
Posted by observor on 29.06.06 at 15:03
Phil,
Gotta ask this question, If after everything else they have done and not done how do you believe this will be the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak? The biggest problem I see is that Bermuda has no viable alternative to turn to. The UBP seems to be in a permanent holding pattern unable to clearly define who they are.
Posted by charles on 29.06.06 at 15:18
I'd like to say I was being ironic, but I wasn't. Putz. Sadly, I guess I am no longer surprised by anything the government says anymore. ;)
Posted by Banana Republican on 29.06.06 at 15:25
I believe that this pay rise should be based on measurable performance, so as to provide the Parliament and members of the executive with incentives to pursue good and worthwhile policies that do not undermine people's standard of living.
In that regard, MPs would be punished for a bad job. Parliamentarians would therefore have more reason to speak up when patently bad decisions are proffered.
If we pay MPs more we should reasonably expect transparency on their part. MPs should publicly have to disclose how much, and from where, they earned income not paid by the State. When a society grants the enormous powers of public office to people who actively seek them, the contract is more than implied that the job comes with the requirement of transparency.
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 15:57
But we have to realize that the pay legislation is for the position(s) not necessarily the individuals in the positions. You can be a Minister today but gone tomorrow. So on what basis is a new Minister paid, when we have no history of which to pay them on? Yes there should be checks and balances and certain criteria they should have to fill i.e. attendance, but how do we really measure their effectiveness. Some Ministries are more lowkey than others, that doesn't mean that the Ministers are not as good.
Posted by ken on 29.06.06 at 16:03
How do we measure their performance?
Some of you must have some ideas.
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:10
Did the economy grow?
Fiscal accountability?
Reduction in crime.
Increases in exam pass rates
If you can't deliver this then move over
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:12
But all of those are not directly related to the Minister in charge. What happens if a particular Minister of Education is demoted to backbench, and a backbencher is promoted? Does he/she take the minimum Minister's salary or take the salary of the demoted Minister?
What if the Minister of Finance is shuffled to Community Affairs & Sport? Will her salary be based on her performance in Finance? What if she was extremely effective in Finance, but not as effective in Community Affairs? Does her salary begin to slide?
I think we get into trouble when we tie the salaries to individuals and personalities, rather than to the position.
Posted by ken on 29.06.06 at 16:22
ken, with all due respect, I think you have just pointed out the number one reason why the governemt should shelve the whole idea of this one-time big pay raise until they can actually figure out why they are deserving of it.
If said ministers can afford to pay ever increasing amounts of dollars to consultants then I would highly recommend they put out a contract to one of the world's more reputable institutions to come in and help come up with a game plan. I am sure there will eventually be some sort of raise for the positions but it should come with a great degree of accountability and proof of accomplishment based on properly established goals and above all be fiscally responsible.
Posted by SmokingGun on 29.06.06 at 16:31
"If she was extremely effective in Finance, but not as effective in Community Affairs? Does her salary begin to slide?"
If she was not effective then fire her!!!
"I think we get into trouble when we tie the salaries to individuals and personalities, rather than to the position."
No, the individuals are in a possition, if they don't perform then get another Job.
This is typical of the lack of accountability in the public sector. In any bank, you would be out on your ear, if you didn't perform.
Why pamper the public sector, I am a teacher, if my daughter was taught by an unsatisfatory teacher then I would have some questions e.g Do they deserve the salary?
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:32
Tax payers, (including teachers) work very hard. They deserve accountale government and anaccountable public sector.
Anything else is unfair !!
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:35
The BIU has just come out in support of the proposed pay increases. But of course they would:
1) The BIU does whatever the PLP wants.
2) It benefits several past/present BIU leaders directly.
3) It sets a yummy precedent for the next BIU pay negotiations.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 29.06.06 at 16:40
What constitutes a part-time minister? A certain amount of pre-defined hours per week? Does anyone know?
Also, I still say if any of these Ministers' departments are the ones who still need to account for the $800m that has not been accounted for, then no pay rises. Can we have selective pay rises? No annual reports, no accountability, no pay rise.
Posted by Tiggy on 29.06.06 at 16:40
quite right I agree
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:41
Can anyone tell me how long an MP has to serve before they become eligable for the pension afforded as a result of that tenure?
If as mentioned above a Minister moves from, say, Finance to Community Affairs, a lower paying position, which of their past portfolios is the pension based upon?
Posted by RedOnion on 29.06.06 at 16:42
I wonder if it is a final salary pension scheme? Enhancing their own pensions at our expense!
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:47
I really don't think the salary for premier being raised to $200,000 is all that unfair. The Premier must perform a host of duties, including those "outside of hours", and be accountable (sigh...)to all citizens of Bermuda. What I do have a problem is with a part-time minister making half of that, plus their normal day job salary!!! What a racket! Where do I sign up?
Posted by Tiggy on 29.06.06 at 16:54
We will really be on the ropes when the government orders a new fleet of Mercedes Benz for each minister. We would have then arrived at our mature democratic destiny. I am sure we are heading in that sort of direction.
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:55
Tiggy
Your point about the salary for premier being raised to $200,000.
Can't he just take it out of the 800 million. Or has it been spent - Oh I forgot we dont know.
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 16:57
Teacher, Hhhhmm.....did I just see the car ship arrive?? LOL!
Posted by Tiggy on 29.06.06 at 17:01
Interesting discussion. A few points to remember. 1. The recommendations for salary increases came from an independent body; 2. they will survive this government and apply to the next,whomever they may be and 3. I don't recall the Opposition saying that they will not be taking their increases...and how could I forget....4. The likes of Maxwell Burgess and cohorts' orginial response to the figures was that it wasn't enough.....but that's not in the script so its all change.....curious how Max didn't attend the House on the day the increases were originally slated to be debated....but got caught out the next week when they were.....you see....several MPs had to go to a funeral in Somerset that day and the debate was called off at the last minute....caught the Opposition by surprise....
Posted by Rossini on 29.06.06 at 18:04
"The recommendations for salary increases came from an independent body"
Who gave them the right to give my tax dollars away for no measurable increase in performance?
Yes they certainly are independent, independent of public opinion - Maybe that is the opinion of the public in cloud cuckoo land?
Posted by Teacher on 29.06.06 at 18:18
"Who gave them the right to give my tax dollars away for no measurable increase in performance?"
We did, as members of society, by voting them in.
And before anyone chimes in with "I bloody didn't", I'm boviously not talking on an individual basis. As a group, we Bermudians voted them into power. Twice.
They're politicians. Isn't that what they do? Give our money away for no measurable increase in performance? *grin*
Posted by The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 29.06.06 at 18:39
"1. The recommendations for salary increases came from an independent body"
So how does that work? Someone walked up to "P" and Ewart and said: "Hey guys, we think you need to get paid more."
Let me guess: Tina Byles Poitevien?
I know it wasn't Tony Brannon.
Posted by SmokingGun on 29.06.06 at 18:50
I think that the massive pay increases are a good thing in the long run. How many seriously well educated Bermudians would be willing to leave their good jobs in finance and insurance to take a pay cut and go into politics?
You pay peanuts, .......
However, by increasing the ministers' pay hopefully the situation will change in the long term. Fresh blood, fresh ideas, a new direction is what the government needs and everyone living in Bermuda needs.
Posted by Bandit on 30.06.06 at 07:07
When money becomes the primary reason for getting involved with politics beware !
We could end up with "THE BEST POLITICIANS MONEY CAN BUY"
Posted by Bill Cook on 30.06.06 at 09:00
Smoking Gun your ignorance is only exceeded by your venom. Try Bob Steinoff as the accountant on the committee. STill prepared to criticise them ? How sad.
Posted by Rossini on 30.06.06 at 09:11
Hmm, the same Bob Steinhoff that was on BIC? Gimme a f'n break.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 30.06.06 at 09:19
I agree with Bill Cook, best politicians money can buy. I think the real debate is that an increase in MP's salaries are fine, but not such a large huge increase at once. Not when the country is in disaray with housing etc.
By the way Rossini, an "independant" committe may have "proposed" it, does not mean it has to be followed to the tee. If you want I can set up an independant committe and come out with a completely different asnwer. Since when does the PLP listen to anyone, ohh wait unless it benifits them.
What would they have done if the committe did not propose it? Showing good leadership would have been better for Scott and Co. They should have decided on a smaller increase and then there would not be so much debate over it.
Mind you maybe they need the larger salaries to pay the taxes for their brand new houses. Anyone notice how many MP's homes have increased in size since they got into office. You would be suprised!
Posted by james on 30.06.06 at 12:51
Rossini, try this:
Intellectual honesty....look it up if you need to.
Posted by jsm on 30.06.06 at 12:54
"Smoking Gun your ignorance is only exceeded by your venom. Try Bob Steinoff as the accountant on the committee. STill prepared to criticise them ? How sad."
Posted by Rossini on 30.06.06 at 09:11
Rossini - Sorry, I forgot, tender subject. No jokes allowed. But haven't you heard? Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Something that the current bunch of cowboys would love is for the rest of us to be completely ignorant of what they get up to.
BTW - if you think that was venomous how would you describe some of the comments that spew out the mouths of some of the snakes up on the hill or over Bermuda's air-waves?
Posted by SmokingGun on 30.06.06 at 13:03
Oh ok..now the PLP is free to reject independant, impartial advice...I get it...what hypocrites you all are.
Posted by Rossini on 30.06.06 at 13:11
Oh ok..now the PLP is free to reject independant, impartial advice...I get it...what hypocrites you all are.
Posted by Rossini on 30.06.06 at 13:11
What if the committe suggested what they got paid was fine? What would they have done then? rejected it or accepted it?
What about experienced technically advice? think they would reject that too? they did when it came to Berkley.
Posted by james on 30.06.06 at 13:21
hypocrites? Easy with that word - it might stick.
BTW - If memory serves me correct the BFR deposited a bag of collected signatures in the lap of "P". No cost, no charge, just free impartial advice. Yup, you're right: Rejected.
Posted by SmokingGun on 30.06.06 at 13:32
Smoking Gun your ignorance is only exceeded by your venom.
Posted by Rossini on 30.06.06 at 09:11
Rossini: "Hi Pot, it's Kettle."
Really, for you to call anyone venomous or a hypocrite is too much.
Perhaps this is another area which is different between Bermuda and a "real" country. Perhaps you should just shoot the lot of us as you told us they do in those fabled lands and be done with it Rossini.
Posted by silencedogood on 30.06.06 at 13:33
Who else was on the committee?
Posted by lickinalong on 30.06.06 at 13:34
Commitees are not formed for no reason. Why was it formed? Who asked for it to be formed? I honestly don't know.
Posted by ace on 30.06.06 at 15:14
"Hmm, the same Bob Steinhoff that was on BIC? Gimme a f'n break." - Tiger
That's not fair. He is widely respected and recently honoured by the insurance community for his long career of service in this community. It is fine to disagree with the increases, but temper your hatred of the PLP with some measure of balance for good people who have done good things with their lives.
Posted by Jake on 01.07.06 at 07:02
Bill Cook,
"When money becomes the primary reason for getting involved with politics beware !"
I can't say I disagree with you, however, if in order to attract the quality of people we want we need to lure them away from their current positions. While I agree that politics should not be about the money, those in the private sector who would serve the country well are doing very well financially and many are still quite young. In order to convince them that they should leave the private sector for public service means that the electorate would have to be willing to meet their financial requirements.
Gone are the days where only the independently wealthy are entering politics. We need those who are capable of effectively running the country to step forward and do so but it is going to take some financial encouragement.
Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 01.07.06 at 11:37
Guilden
That is nonsense. Employers generally allow employees time off to serve. Are you suggesting that HSBC is not paying Paula Cox's salary and allowing her time of to do her job as Minister of Finance? Or, for that matter, that she does not have the financial resources to cope even if HSBC were not employing her?
Posted by Daedalus on 03.07.06 at 00:03
Daed, FYI I think she left the Bank ages ago, but that is aside the point.
I actually DO think a pay increase is necessary. You just end up with a bunch of populist misfits who are unemployable in the private sector running your country otherwise (which I'd like to argue is what we currently have). Either that or you attract only those with a lust for power and a perchance for graft. I mean we have absolutely no sense of national pride, according to P himself at least at the last Independence Forum, so why else would someone take the job.
No-one would want to do the crappy job that MPs and Ministers have to do for the ammount that they are being paid.
HOWEVER the current increase that the Government is asking for is insane. Or perhaps more aptly labelled: "Political Suicide".
Posted by Combat Banker on 03.07.06 at 06:26
If we have a really competent civil service who actually run the country we do not need a government comprised of genius politicians rather we need sensible people of the highest integrity and morality.
Moreover they need to take leadership roles as frequently some of the best are offset by less than sterling leadership and in consequence are marginalised.
I have already given examples of UBP politicians who were not wealthy several times so am not to continue repeating myself but one such was my associate Bill McPhee a former police constable from Ireland who was always very civic minded and while undertaking the mammoth task of building his business enterprises was commandant of the reserve constabulary chairman of the road safety council (responsible for the introduction of safety helmets with Dr Stubbs)and I may add in the middle of his very stressful businesses ran against an established wealthy Bermudian Mr James Pearman in his district and beating him by the largest margin of any politician to date through tireless canvassing
He went on to replace Mr Pearman as minister of Transport and may well have been Premier until his premature death.
I quote this example of a man who from early life had a true desire to serve his fellow man and that was his primary motive in life.
That he was very bright is true but he listened to people and surrounded himself with talented people who he credited with his success
These are the type of people needed in politics selfless people of conscious not those primarily attracted for personal gain.
Posted by Bill Cook on 03.07.06 at 07:34
Very inspirational post Bill. No truer words could be written and I am sure Mr. McPhee is smiling from above.
Posted by SmokingGun on 03.07.06 at 11:54
In answer to some earlier questions - yes, their pension scheme is salary related but the pension is not based on the MP/Senators salary at retirement but the salary related to the office held. Also the pension is not based on hte office held at retirement but on the number of years for which a particular person holds a certain office with the highest value office counting first (only 25 years of service counts. For example if a person was just an MP for 10 years then became a minister for 10 years and finally premier for 10 years then the pension will be based on a weighted average salary 10/25ths of the salary of the premier when the person retires, 10/25ths of a ministers salary when he retires and 5/25ths of an MPs salary when he retires. The maximum pension is 2/3rd of the salary of the highest office held.
There is a requirement for 8 years service before an pension is granted.
You can download the legislation for hte ministers and members from the bermudalaw website.
Posted by Simon on 03.07.06 at 15:04
Daedalus,
"That is nonsense. Employers generally allow employees time off to serve."
What I would like to see are fulltime Minsiters. I believe the running of the country is a fulltime job and there should not be the distraction of serving a private employer. Further, if a sitting Minister is also employed in a decision making capacity in the private sector, which "master" will he/she place as a priority, the one that is temporary, or the one that is stable and will pay the bills long-term.
This is why I think the compensation packages for Ministers should be very attractive. We are not going to have the "best and brightest" put themselves forward unless the package is attractive.
If the "best and brightest" is going to give up his/her private sector opportunities then he/she should be attractively compensated for it.
Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 03.07.06 at 16:06