When I ran a national team of sales and operations staff I had close to 300 men and women dotted around the country. They were all doing pretty much the same thing, but each had their own job description and reward structure. They also had all the tools needed to do the job and if they needed something new they consulted and authorisation was agreed and funded.
Their pay varied: some doing the same job got different amounts, based on regional demands and the simple laws of supply and demand. For those with greater responsibility there was greater reward and also greater accountability, for example authorising requests for expenditure.
Everyone knew the rules, lived to them and was happy with them. And if I was a betting man, I’d say that every single one of those people ended up out of pocket for occasionally not claiming those costs that were incurred on behalf of the company.
So why on earth are our MP’s so different?
In my view it comes down to the lack of a job description and therefore the lack of accountability to that role as well as lack of true competition.
There is absolutely no why, for example, there could not be a Job Description for each constituency, which allocates the right resources (offices, travel, and tools) as well as a salary for that job.
Neighbouring constituencies could have different needs and consequently different reward structures. For those who see this as unfair, let me suggest that the candidates standing in an election are in reality applying for a job and therefore will need to apply for a job that matches their needs.
If the grass appears greener, financially, on the other side of the boundary, then apply for that job. But of course that won’t happen as boundaries also deliver different levels of support as well and change the likelihood of being elected.
Unless we start with a declaration of what we want from our MP’s we will continue to get what they want instead. And the last few days have shown that what they want is not what the electorate wants.