[Closed] are all MPs scum?

I think it is also a case of they know they can get away with it. People vote em in so we only have ourselves to blame collectively for not calling them to account. At the last election we knew how bad they all were but most got re-elected.

There are a tiny handful of OK ish ones.

the entire electorate should soil our ballot papers at the next one

soil our ballot papers

delibrate? lol

Must admit, not wishing to side with anyone but....

I used to live 17 miles from work in a city. I had to get the 6:49 train in order to guarantee I could get to work for 9:00, simply due to the fact that you can't rely on public transport and often trains are cancelled and these then screw up the later trains. Ultimately this is why I used to drive to work instead of using public transport - at least my delay was predictable and I had a comfy seat and didn't get colds repeatedly. Likewise on the way home I could spend 2 hours due to overcrowded trains etc - in the end I started cycling as it was faster than the car even, but if you live 37 miles from work I have no doubt that its a pain in the neck.

He does seem to assume "normal" people dont have to get to places on time though lol.

what so they can take that as passive approval? its a bit like boycotting the elections, as then they can think, 'great we can really take the piss now'.

If you don't vote, or worse spoil your paper then you really can't/shouldn't comment on the leaders/politics of the country as you have chosen not to have a voice/opinion but to instead gag yourself and then bend over and take it.

If you don't vote, or worse spoil your paper

Well that is two different things. You don't vote you don't have your word. You spoil your paper you have your word to say. Because you made the effort to find 5 minutes to go to the voting poll.

yes you have your word(s), unfortunately as far the the MP/political parties care it says, 'I can't read instructions'.

oh no i meant soil my paper with bodily excreta

but what party to vote for, which one says they will completely overhaul mps wages and expenses and do you believe them?

****ed if I know, and by the time we get to the general election I am sure some new scandal will be all over the papers.

Personally, I think if one party stays in power too long, they become so corrupt they eventually make themselves unelectable. Tories did this in the 90's and its now Labours turn.

Proportional representation would be nice, however the Tories and Labour have so much to lose from that system they would never allow it to be voted through.

None of them carry out what they say they will in the way that the people want, at least if we had a dictatorship we would have someone to be bitter about rather than having to blame each other for voting the morons in.

The sad obsession with a few MPs by so many people is laughable. There is a democratic way to remove MPs from power if you don't like them. If you don't like an of them, you can always stand yourself. In the interim, moaning like hell about their hours etc is daft. MPs work until very late at night, the parliamentary hours have traditionally been anti-social anyway but you rarely hear anyone mentioning that.

The vitriolic remarks about them all being "scum" is ridiculous, most MPs are paid a lot less than people on this forum and most of them give a lot more back than the people having a pop.

I think PR is the way forward. More parties represented, better debate, not just the two major parties scoring petty points. My wife is a Kiwi and she is impressed with the way it works over there.

We also, by the standards of a vast number of countries, have pretty much no idea what "political corruption" means.

[i]most MPs are paid a lot less than people on this forum and most of them give a lot more back than the people having a pop.[/i]

balls! how much do you think the legions of carers nurses etc etc earn-
way less than any MP £64,766 plus £30k expenses?

dunno what you are earning count but im not far over the national average with a good degree and 10 years experience and as a cancer research scientist thats not a bad wage at all

and with national average approx £26k the people earning millions skew that well above the median of approx £20k [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7581120.stm ]salaries[/url]

most MPs are paid a lot less than people on this forum

I presume that's a subtle joke I didn't get?

I don't think all MPs are scum, but there is a culture that has grown up at the House of Commons that they claim all the allowances they can get, partly this has been semi-official in the past as governments never like to increase MP's pay, it looks bad, so instead they bump it up via all the various allowances.

This does however look very bad, and they appear to be completely out of touch - the stuff from outer London MPs about not being able to get to central London for work hours is utter tosh - yes it may be difficult but what about the millions of other commuters that manage it day in day out?

Like kimbers said, they seem to have the attitude that what they do is important, and by implication, everyone else doesn't matter.

Can we re-phrase to catch what Count meant. A large number of us are paid considerably more than MPs are, even if you are not personally.

Anyone currently in care work or whatever who believes they can do the Home Secretary's job has a straightforward way of proving it, of course. I am paid more than an MP's basic and am pretty confident I could not. 🙂

Personally, I think if one party stays in [b]power[/b] too long

That one word says it all.

Increasingly, the dialogue is about who is in [i]power[/i], rather than which parties holds office. Power suggests that control and patronage are to be expected as normal; holding offices implies responsibility and duty on those in that privileged position.

For so long as politicians do what they do for [i]power[/i] and are so overt with their statements on the same, the harder it will be to fight back.

We have seen this quite starkly in the last 10 years, as civil liberties have been hugely cut back by a paranoid and power-drunk government. As our apparent riches increased, so did our apathy; we took it lying down.

Now, the paranoia is worse: there are posters appearing on billboards across our towns and cities exhorting us to snitch on our neighbours and fellow citizens, and we find ourselves apparently powerless to object to the behaviour of a government bent on clinging onto its [i]power[/i] by any menas. Demonstrate within a kilometre of Parliament? Not unless you ask the police (hardly impartial, are they).

And don't get me stared on the pre-emptive demonising of the various anti-G20 movements (and, with it, homginising all marchers, protestors and demonstrators as anti-constiutitional pseudo-terrorists)....

A large number of us are paid considerably more than MPs are

I very much doubt that also. Unless there's an extremely high incidence of GPs or consultants here. Who else would earn £64k basic? City high flyers? Senior managers in large companies or public sector? Headteachers of large schools? Company directors? Very successful IT salespeople if they hit their targets? A few self employed contractors? Barristers?

Let's consider who's in the 25-40k bracket - nurses, teachers, computer programmers, road safety engineers, architects, accountants (unless they are partners), lawyers, middle managers, marketing managers, local government officers, basically the vast majority of graduate jobs.

i have a lot of respect for Tony Benn

None of them carry out what they say they will in the way that the people want

They are representatives, not delegates. The idea is to avoid MPs being "bought" by influential (and rich) lobbyists, as in the US. Neil Hamilton showed this doesn't always work.

parliamentary hours have traditionally been anti-social

There are many reasons I can think of for MPs being anti-social - see my post above - but I do think you mean "unsociable".... 😉

most MPs are paid a lot less than people on this forum

I'm not paid a lot less, but I am paid less*. For the base salary, it's not a job I would (irrespective of whether I could) do. For the sums that many make through the expenses system, it's something I would do.

So, it leads to a simple conclusion: (1) raise the salary, index link it to an agreed inflationary measure (RPI or CPI) (2) do away with expenses altogether (3) have a free vote in the Commons for the remuneration committee which sets the annual MP's salary. That's about as fair and non-bureacratic as I can think of to get through this debacle.

*BD - a word of warning: salaries outside London are as bad as you think.

Anyone currently in care work or whatever who believes they can do the Home Secretary's job has a straightforward way of proving it, of course. I am paid more than an MP's basic and am pretty confident I could not.

The Home Secretary, like all ministers, gets a ministerial salary on top of their MP's salary.

Cabinet ministers get an [b]extra[/b] 80k, junior ministers 40k. This is [b]on top of[/b] their 64k MP salary. Plus of course whatever 'extras' they can claim for (free everything, basically).

[i]salaries outside London are as bad as you think[/i]

Indeed. But you'd really struggle to get people to do MPs' working hours in London for a Manchester salary...

😉

Porterclough - I understand that the Home Secretary gets substantially more than MPs basic. I still couldn't do her job. I do not like the woman, and disagree fundamentally with a huge amount of what she ultimately does, but I am not going to pretend that that is the result of herincompetence. 🙂

BD - I don't begrudge a good salary for senior ministers, it is clearly a very high pressure job. Some back bench MPs, however, would struggle to justify their basic MP salary never mind the various scams and fiddles.

As I said earlier, more important than the money is the attitude that seems prevelant, that of one rule for them and another for the rest of us. That is what gets up people's noses I think.

are all MPs scum?

No, but those who seek power should not be allowed it as they are normally not the best to hold it.

whoa there for more than double, tripple, quadruple.... my salary id become an MP it may well be hard
and maybe im being naive but i reckon i could do as good a job as many of them
i probably would become as corrupt as them though i think once you get sucked into westminster ways there is no turning back

Most but not all ...

So kimbers, why haven't you? It's not like you have to pass any difficult entrance exams or anything...

😉

A large number of us are paid considerably more than MPs are

I doubt that. I'd be surprised if 10% of people off here earn more than £62000 a year. And as for 'considerably more', well, I doubt that even more.

And you're forgetting all the add-ons, like consultancy fees, directorships, etc, that many of them get. Not to mention after-dinner speaking and other little earners. I'd be surprised if any MP has a net income well below £100k.

But you'd really struggle to get people to do MPs' working hours in London for a Manchester salary...

Ah, that assumes there's a real difference. Might be at the top end, but not at my shop. 1900 last year for me - not quite magic circle MP levels, but not far off. And for about 50% or less of the pay....

No, but those who seek power should not be allowed it as they are normally not the best to hold it.

Plato thought about this a lot. Clearly the ideal is the person who does not want the job. But then you'd have to have a tyrannical electorate forcing him/her to do it. I'm not sure that would serve the greater good, but it does - to a certain extent - provide for a more pure state of governance.

MPs probably can justify their basic, but I can't see the fact that we need to help them acquire assets from the public purse. They don't need to buy a 2nd house (shouldn't this be some sort of benefit in kind?) why can't they get a capped £100 a night hotel / food allowance, they'd all get a good rate from major hotel chain so it'd be just another procurement issue. Its our money after all, they should put it back into the economy by keeping people in jobs within the hotel / guest house industry, not buying houses for themselves.

are all MPs scum?

Nope, most are pretty good. Some have maximised and overclaimed - but within the letter of the rules.
.
FWIW, while I find the whole expenses thing abhorrent, lets also remember that in general UK politics are very 'clean'.

[i]So kimbers, why haven't you? It's not like you have to pass any difficult entrance exams or anything...[/i]

well 1st of all i love my current job too much

secondly my history of sex and drug usage would have me tabloid sh!tstormed in seconds!

[i]by claiming that being in work for 9-30 is an impossibility if you live as far from london as essex[/i]

He didn't say that or did I miss something ? He said that he was frequently not getting home until 1am and then having to set off again at 5.30am. If I had to do that in my job I'd be looking for a new job. Can't blame him myself.

I understand that the Home Secretary gets substantially more than MPs basic. I still couldn't do her job

hmmmm - I'm not so sure what the HS or any of the rest [i]actually[/i] does for her part in it all
I mean, a week after reshuffling they ostensibly become the nation's highest authority on their new subject ??

I've a feeling that "yes, minister" is a lot closer to the truth

Agreed fubar. For me the issue is not that they have a second home/flat near house of commons, that is sensible in my opinion.

The 'problem' is when they are claiming pay per view films, for large houses rather than smaller ones, paying (over inflated wages) for family members, allowances for stereos at £750 etc etc.

I think a (generous) flat rate of allowances should work.

Big Dummy, is that a dig meant specifically at those in the caring professions or is it meant for anyone who does work for the good of the community?

There is no shortage of people wanting to be MPs

We need to apply to them the same economic logic society applies to people wanting to be bar staff - pay them as little as possible until the supply starts to dry up, then slowly increase their wages until just enough people are applying to fill the vacancies

So about £8 an hour should do it - with no expenses for spouses, socialite sons, parents' houses or porn flix

MPs didn't used to get paid eldridge. As a consequence, it attracted only 'gentlemen of some means'.
Paying MPs a wage, was one of the great reforms of British democracy.

BTW, MPs get paid less than the average company lawyer or city broker.

Still, I guess they don't have to do anything important such as passing laws, or worry about the smooth running of financial institutions.

BTW, MPs get paid less than the average company lawyer or city broker.

Do you have any evidence of that? I'm not disputing it, just would find it very surprising.

I don't think other people are earning as much as we imagine they are sometimes.

I have some sympathy for MPs, they move in very powerful circles and their salaries will certainly be lower than many of the people they deal with professionally on a day-to-day basis.

I'm not suprised that some feel entitled to maximise their income via expenses, even if I don't approve of it.

he said he was getting up at 5-30 to garuantee being in by 9-30
unless he had to travel by mule he was lying out his huuuuge ass
plenty of my workmates are in by 9-30 from as far or further afield, i commuted in for a year from just as far and no way did i get up at 5-30!!

dimbleby also pointed out the mps no longer sit late into the night and no mps disagreed with him

My MP finds the time to earn lots of extra cash doing other jobs. He also manages to live further from his constituency than that guy lives from Westminster. The fact that he seems to do very little speaking in the Commons and gets around all that pesky thinking about stuff by voting however his party tells him might explain how he has the time to do this.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/alan_milburn/darlington

BTW, MPs get paid less than the average company lawyer or city broker.

Do you have any evidence of that? I'm not disputing it, just would find it very surprising.

Well I have now that you've made me dig it out.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/best-paid-jobs

"City brokers came second to directors, earning on average £94,293 a year, an increase of just 0.9% on last year."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3224050.ece

"The average salary for an in-house lawyer is now £114,000, the report said."

Still, I guess they don't have to do anything important such as passing laws, or worry about the smooth running of financial institutions.

Paying MPs a wage, was one of the great reforms of British democracy

I don't dispute the need for a wage for MPs. Just like I don't dispute the need for a wage for Starbucks baristas

I just think that they should be subject to the same economic principles

No shortage of applicants for Starbucks baristas = low pay
No shortage of applicants for MPs should also equal low pay

When the low pay starts acting as a deterrent to applicants, then it has to be raised to a level where people are once again attracted by the money

This is called market forces

Our MPs are very keen on these

I think you've missed the point, eldridge. There would almost certainly be sufficient applicants if you paid them nothing as they used to. How would market forces work then - would you have to see how much they'd pay to do it? You'd probably not get anybody working at Starbucks for nothing though.

Unfortunately having said that, it doesn't seem to work particularly well. The theory usually trotted out being that you have to pay equivalent wages to top lawyers, managers etc. to get the right caliber of people in - when in reality you seem to get plenty who aren't actually capable of doing anything else as remotely high paid as being an MP.

No shortage of applicants for MPs should also equal low pay

There seems to be a shortage of applicants with any kind of principles, scruples, ethics or morality.

Grizzlygus - That's a real eye opener, I guess a "company lawyer" must be the top legal figure in an organisation?

It's not a term I've come across before, you don't think it means any (qualified legal) staff in a company's legal department?

Eldridge - I know £64k sounds like a lot of money, but I know plenty of middle managers on similar sums. I think MPs' basic salary is quite low in comparitive (and London) terms.

Still, it is time they sharpened up their act on expenses.

Well I have now that you've made me dig it out.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/best-paid-jobs

According that Dentists earn £31k which is ludicrous, NHS figures say £80k plus:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/FreedomOfInformation/Freedomofinformationpublicationschemefeedback/FOIreleases/DH_4131670

So I wouldn't put too much faith in the figures thisismoney quote.

"The average salary for an in-house lawyer is now £114,000, the report said."

Top flight lawyers with a decade of experience, working 60->70 hours weeks are on around that though according to my SO (who is an ex-city lawyer) but who want to have to use sleeping rooms at work most nights of the week.

Indeed not - most of them don't. Those that do tend to get paid extra.

WTF ? They get paid extra when it comes to making decisions and voting ? Now [i]that[/i] sounds a right fiddle 😯

.

So I wouldn't put too much faith in the figures thisismoney quote.

Don't like thisismoney quote ? Sure you could this yourself, but :

http://www.careerbuilder.co.uk/Article/CB-126-Job-Search-Britains-Top-10-Salaries/?ArticleID=126&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=875ba652961e41cbb360da5abbd62c87-291905754-w6-6&ns_siteid=ns_uk_g_average_stockbroker_s_

"3. Brokers - Average Salary: £94,293" (2007)

http://www.salarytrack.co.uk/average-stockbroker-salary.html

"stockbroker £100,000" (Jan 30, 2009)

.

Top flight lawyers with a decade of experience, working 60->70 hours weeks are on around that

So that will be the "average in-house lawyer" then.
According to the Times Business Desk.

I can't see how any MP can justify being able to comfortably afford to BUY a decent size house with an allowance intended for them to stay in London 2-3 nights a week. It would be cheaper for the money to be used to build an estate of studio flats, furnished by Ikea at reasonable expense and let all MP's use one when they are in London. They don't need a 3 or 4 bedroom second home if it is intended for use as overnight accomodation and they certainly don't need to own it outright when they are no longer in a job. The fact that the ALLOWANCE is around the average wage (and nearly double my wage) is disgusting.

Here's the spreadsheet of expenses: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEObQ2itmSqHIA

Struggled to scroll easily on my laptop, so probably easiest to use if you export as an xls file.

They get paid extra when it comes to making decisions and voting ?

If you don't mind chrism, I would rather my MP made informed decisions rather than just turned up to vote.

The irony of complaining about the alleged lack of proper and diligent representation, whilst at the same time being apparently satisfied with nothing more than a cursory commitment to the democratic process of Parliament, [i]and[/i] resentfully denying MPs the correct tools and conditions (A studio flat kitted out by IKEA 😀 ) to their jobs; isn't lost on me.

Make your minds up. What sort of MPs do you want ffs ?

Gotta say - I'm bleeding glad some of the divs on here ain't running country 🙄

Why do they need use of more than a studio flat? It's better than a hotel room as they'd have a kitchen and more space

If you don't mind chrism, I would rather my MP made informed decisions rather than just turned up to vote.

MPs don't get paid extra to make the decision on which way to vote. Those with extra duties get paid extra - leader of the party, minister, etc. but bog-standard MPs get paid the bog-standard rate.

MPs don't get paid extra to make the decision on which way to vote.

MPs get told how to vote by the party whips so it's not like they need to spend any time thinking about such matters.