[Closed] MPs and that pay rise....

As a civil servant, I agree.

On the other hand, when senior managers in various public bodies - NHS Trusts being the obvious target - are being paid multiple times the PMs salary, something is wrong somewhere. Not sure what the solution is to stop the madness at either end though

it's not a surprise.

What is a surprise is that we all just accept it...

If we want the best and brightest to go into politics then we need decent salaries. MPs salaries are pretty low by industry standards, most professionals would take a pay cut to become an MP. With the current systems we seem to get people who have either married money (Clegg etc) or inherited it (Osbourne) which isn't healthy as they have absolutely zero real world experience and just go Eton to Oxbridge to Parliament all funded by a trust fund.

So, I'm quite happy with the 10% pay rise.

multiple times the PMs salary

Remember the PM gets a couple of houses, expenses, and sales of books, consultancy, etc afterward, plus the insanely good pension and the payout if they're not reelected. (As does their spouse, and then their family gets to dodge inheritance tax.)

MPs salaries are pretty low by industry standards, most professionals would take a pay cut to become an MP.

They're paid a shitload more than I or my colleagues.

footflaps - Member

If we want the best and brightest to go into[s] politics[/s] then we need decent salaries.

Replace with every other government institution which is facing freezes (ie, cuts). Do we not want the best and brightest being doctors, or teachers, or actually running government departments? Nah.

But remember, we're all in this together. And of course IPSA are independent and MPs do what they say, you can't overrule an independent pay commission. Except when it's the NHS one. Or it's your own and it's recommending that your perks are cut.

They're paid a shitload more than I or my colleagues.

That as may be, however there are still a lot of professionals paid a lot more than MPs (Doctors, Architects, Lawyers etc).

If we really want the best to become MPs, you have to make it an attractive offer. It's also a pretty precarious job, no guaranteed tenure (election could be called at any time) and then you're out on your ear. They're cutting back on the redundancy / resettlement allowance as well, so it's no longer as generous as it was.

So to be an MP you're asking someone to give up a well paid job in a career, take a pay cut, accept a salary for 3-5 years (say) and then possibly just get made redundant. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

But remember, we're all in this together. And of course IPSA are independent and MPs do what they say, you can't overrule an independent pay commission. Except when it's the NHS one. Or it's your own and it's recommending that your perks are cut.

Do you not see the ironing* in your argument?

If you want better political decisions, you probably need better politicians....

*STW TM

If you want better political decisions, you probably need better politicians....

Ones not motivated by money, perhaps?

Ones not motivated by money, perhaps?

The Eton Mafia? Coz that's working out so well...

There are loads of good people who would recieve a pay rise if elected as an MP. We currently get people in PR, law and finance who want to get their snout in the trough.

footflaps - Member

Do you not see the ironing* in your argument?

If you want better political decisions, you probably need better politicians....

Uh. In order to stop our politicians hypocritically paying themselves more, we have to pay them more?

I'd totally post a gif of Mal Reynolds being speechless here, if I could be bothered.

footflaps - Member

If we want the best and brightest to go into politics then we need decent salaries. ...
So, I'm quite happy with the 10% pay rise.

so we can look forward to a 10% improvemnent in how everything is going if I follow your logic correctly?

performance related pay based on the minimum wage would be a better motivator perhaps? 😀

performance related pay based on the minimum wage would be a better motivator perhaps?

Some fixed multiple of the national median wage would be fair.

Some fixed multiple of the national median wage would be fair.

Yep, that would probably be best.

so we can look forward to a 10% improvemnent in how everything is going if I follow your logic correctly?

Possibly long term.

Currently you only get people backed by trust funds who have spent their whole lives isolated from vast segments of the population at Eton / Oxbridge and then straight into Politics. To them the salary is just pocket money. If you want the best brains running the country you will have to pay top end salaries, just as you do in the private sector. And in the UK you don't get best brains for £60-£70k.

Currently you only get people backed by trust funds who have spent their whole lives isolated from vast segments of the population at Eton / Oxbridge and then straight into Politics.

My MP went to a local state secondary, then the same 6th form and uni that I went to. Her kids are in local state schools.

If you want the best brains running the country you will have to pay top end salaries, just as you do in the private sector. And in the UK you don't get best brains for £60-£70k.

I and my colleagues would disagree with this.

[i]Currently you only get people backed by trust funds who have spent their whole lives isolated from vast segments of the population at Eton / Oxbridge and then straight into Politics. To them the salary is just pocket money. If you want the best brains running the country you will have to pay top end salaries, just as you do in the private sector. And in the UK you don't get best brains for £60-£70k. [/i]

Agree, but how do we make sure that the same mob won't still be MP's - just costing us more?

I don't necessarily disagree they aren't paid fantastically (though with all the perks it is very comfortable)

The problem is the timing, given what they are pushing through and then to give themselves a pretty large rise whilst telling everyone else they have to make cuts. How's about they turn around the economy [i]first[/i] and then give themselves a rise?

Given they are voted in by the public, surely they are bright enough to realise the majority of people will see this as completely hypocritical?

Not just a payrise it follows through to their pensions. A £7k payrise adds £85k to their pension entitlement. An MP who serves for 15 years now has a pension worth £1.2m To put this into context a private sector pension over an entire 40 year working lifetime cannot exceed that amount without attracting punitive tax.

Very few politicians are attracted by the salaries which backbench MPs receive imo. Obviously some individuals such as Tony Blair are attracted by the much bigger picture and the huge potential for great personal financial fulfillment which a parliamentary career can offer.

the last time mps got a py rise we the people objected loudly so call me dave set up an independent group to reccomend pay rises for mps.. and here we go they came up with this call me dave dont want it many mps see it as perverse..

i have a mate whos an mp a tory.. he comes from the wrong side of the tracks went to secondary school joined the army as a private left and worked for the council.. sound all round decent bloke.. no silver spoon just hard graft..

I and my colleagues would disagree with this.

I'm curious as to what industry?

If we really want the best to become MPs

They're cutting back on the redundancy / resettlement allowance as well, so it's no longer as generous as it was.

So to be an MP you're asking someone to give up a well paid job in a career, take a pay cut, accept a salary for 3-5 years (say) and then possibly just get made redundant. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Mind, if that's not enough you can collect a few favours owed by the beneficiaries of your "expert parliamentary advice" during your tenure

I'm curious as to what industry?

Mikes a teacher IIRC..

It's worth pointing out that anybody on here could become an MP if they wanted to be and make a difference.

Better than whinging and apathy.

anybody on here could become an MP if they wanted to

Unlikely imo. There's very few people on here that strike as the sort of material the electorate would want to vote for. imho

You never know until you try, no point being defeated before you give it a go.

Which STWer would you vote for to represent you in Parliament ?

The only one which comes to my mind is binners if only to liven up the floor of the House. But I wouldn't trust him to vote correctly when the division bell is rung.

Captain Flashy of course!!

Duh!!!

It's worth pointing out that anybody on here could become an MP if they wanted to be and make a difference.

Load of bollocks.

Equality of opportunity only exists in theory, the reality is breaking into that system is nigh on impossible for an outsider.

Remember the PM gets a couple of houses, expenses, and sales of books, consultancy, etc afterward, plus the insanely good pension and the payout if they're not reelected. (As does their spouse, and then their family gets to dodge inheritance tax.)

Careful now. None of that is "free" as you imply. They are trading of their reputation and standing and using their contacts to earn a post term fortune. Everyone had to earn a living, and they've mechanisms to do this, but are not "given" this for free.

With regard to the public sector, what is often missed is that in the majority of cases, reduce public sector resources have resulted in more effective (measured by outcome, and reduced cost of service) services delivered using tax payers money. That's no different from a private sector company squeezing the life out of an employee for all they are worth. Welcome to the real world.

Now, back to salaries - there are always grafters and lazy sods in every neck of he woods. Sure, there are some MP who appear to milk and above average salary, whilst there are those that deserve it. Would you take the stress, constant travel, constant requirement to be politically up to date and on trend (this reading and study doesn't always happen in the 9-5) responsibility and requirement of the PM's 24hr 7 day a week job for £65k a year? Not me thanks.

I think it's only fair that they get 10% so soon after there 11% pay rise. Just as it was fair NHS workers received their first pay rise in years of a massive 1% which of course they had to fight for.

I would argue politicians are no longer needed technology should make parliament a thing of the past and we should move to direct government voting on each issue with an efficient non corruptible civil service to implement the wishes of the people, your local representative results from the age when parliament was far away and news traveled very slowly its 300 years old and totally out of date and so open to corruption.

With regard to the public sector, what is often missed is that in the majority of cases, reduce public sector resources have resulted in more effective (measured by outcome, and reduced cost of service) services delivered using tax payers money.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

footflaps - Member
They're paid a shitload more than I or my colleagues.
That as may be, however there are still a lot of professionals paid a lot more than MPs (Doctors, Architects, Lawyers etc).

Average pay for barristers = £49,000. Doctors = £50,000. Architect = £33,000. (Payscale.com - definitions may vary)

Minimum pay for MP = £74,000

If we really want the best to become MPs, you have to make it an attractive offer.

The best based on what?

It's also a pretty precarious job, no guaranteed tenure (election could be called at any time) and then you're out on your ear. They're cutting back on the redundancy / resettlement allowance as well, so it's no longer as generous as it was.

If pay was linked to the precariousness of jobs the labour market would look very different! There are a hell of a lot of jobs more precarious than being an MP.

I'm curious as to what industry?

Mikes a teacher IIRC.

Yes, on ~50% of an MP's salary.

Pay freeze for the last few years, worsened pension arrangements, increased class sizes, and more contact hours.

IT'S NOT A F***ING JOB.

IF YOU ARE AN MP AND YOU'RE DOING IT FOR THE SALARY YOU NEED TO GET A DIFFERENT JOB.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE BUNCH OF TW*TS WE DO IN PARLIAMENT

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBANG >head explodes<

Average pay for barristers = £49,000. Doctors = £50,000. Architect = £33,000. (Payscale.com - definitions may vary)

You'll see my post above that I think the payrise is outrageous. My own view is MPs should be paid £100k+ with zero office / living expenses, state provided 1 bed apartment for when in London, free public transport travel and that there should be 350 not 650 MPs

I’m of the opinion that MP’s deserve the pay rise. What I’d like to see in return is a fair and equitable expenses and subsistence allowance in line with current large organisations in the City. That means fully disclosed and accounted for.
I think the “job”, for it really is a job of an MP is a difficult one. We may have this image of them all lounging around on 4hr lunch breaks and endless Ascot luvvies trailing along by their side but in reality it’s not like that. The red tape and lack of a cohesive streamlined organisation, efficient in production is the biggest annoyance in my eyes. Reforms have been passed and are coming through, but to me it’s the link with the Upper Echelons of the Civil Service and Heads of Govt that cause the greatest headaches and roadblocks. A lack of cohesive direction means we slip and slither from one direction to the other and endless change means no real channel to follow. No wonder it attracts a certain type of person to become an MP.
What I do see though this time around is a very large % of Women MP’s in this Govt. Finally a % or the population can be heard and loudly too, whilst this may take some time to come through I applaud the direction. What we could now do with is a reform of the HoL and get some elected folks in their and I think we’ll be just about stable.
As is 10% might sound outrageous, and it is, but it doesn’t parry up with even VP’s in large organisations.

These numbers are way too low.

I'm surprised Barristers are as high as that. And remember that's their gross income as they're self employed. Junior barristers working in the criminal bar get paid as little as £50 a day. And it still costs £25k+ to train. Why do you think there's so much noise generated by legal aid cuts - no-one's prepared to earn less than their debt repayments….

The idea that any of the professions are a guaranteed way to gravy is particularly outdated. I stopped working as a solicitor last year and my pay has already risen, ahem, materially more than the MPs' proposed pay rise….

As is 10% might sound outrageous, and it is, but it doesn’t parry up with even VP’s in large organisations.

But a typical back bench MP isn't doing a job equivalent to a VP in a large organisation.

Guess the profession:

* Pay point 1 £21,684
* Pay point 2 £23,401
* Pay point 3 £25,252
* Pay point 4 £27,252
* Pay point 5 £29,409
* Pay point 6 £31,736
* Pay point 7 £34,382
* Pay point 8 £35,628
* Pay point 9 £37,008

These numbers are way too low

I work in an established and reasonably successful architect's practice, and I can confirm that those numbers are not too low.
Fully qualified architects are paid a good chunk less than half of the MP salaries, and company directors are still some way below the MPs number too.

£33k average is probably about right for an average, including regional variations in salaries which are not insignificant.

I'm curious as to what industry?

Mikes a teacher IIRC.

Yes, on ~50% of an MP's salary.

OK, how much does a head teacher earn? Staff of what maybe 100-200, budget of a few million.

MPs collectively manage a budget of 750 billion and responsible for 65 million people....

I think they're very much underpaid.

Guess the profession:

* Pay point 1 £21,684
* Pay point 2 £23,401
* Pay point 3 £25,252
* Pay point 4 £27,252
* Pay point 5 £29,409
* Pay point 6 £31,736
* Pay point 7 £34,382
* Pay point 8 £35,628
* Pay point 9 £37,008

"pay point" = public sector, innit. And we all know who's to blame for EVERYTHING, don't we?