[Closed] mp's feel they deserve a 32% pay increase.what do you think 😉

Yep that was one of the points MP bloke on radio was making. Two of his colleagues were qualified GPs and had to take considerable pay cuts to become MPs.

His argument was that you end up with lots of moneyed rich folk being MPs because well-qualified others can't afford to give up well paying jobs to do it. It's an interesting point.

I doubt the GP became a GP to make money nor an MP and if they did I dont want them doing either job

Is your wife just in it for the money then? [ not meaning to be personal ]

See this is the problem - the MP's are all rich , they are all better paid than most of us and they spend their time with even richer folk so they think they are poor - they are just so out of touch with reality

This is an area that they could lead by example with, then we could see it applied right through the ranks of public servants.

As a public servant, I'd welcome performance related pay. That way I might get some recompense for the amount of non-payable overtime I have to do

Irrelevent of anything, if the 'package' is set too low all you'll get is idealists, folk with money or folk who think they can make money to be MP's.

And most of the current crowd seem to in the later two categories...

For me, £100k give or take £10k seems a reasonable number, but I'd take away the DB pension and replace it with a DC pension (with a max rate of 8% from the 'employer'). And expenses to a standard that is deemed acceptable by HMRC for the average private sector employee - which would still cover all away-from-home costs.

An MP can have a limited life, and we need to get more 'normal' people into the Commons - so they need salary/expenses at a level to ensure that someone can give up a decent job to become one.

Look at what a senior professional/manager earns, whether public or private sector, and these for me are the kind of people we need.

Two of his colleagues were qualified GPs and had to take considerable pay cuts to become MPs.

With business skills like that, looks like they were made to be MPs 😯

As a public servant, I'd welcome performance related pay. That way I might get some recompense for the amount of non-payable overtime I have to do

They all knew the salary package when they stood for Parliament. If they don't like it, don't do it!

Many, particularly the Tories, have other sources of income such as non-executve directorships.

Many[s], particularly the Tories,[/s] have other sources of income such as non-executve directorships.

Yep.
They do.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/sunderland-pay-miliband-125k-15-days-142617551.html

I'd far rather see MPs paid more to attract good people. Otherwise, as others have said, only those with money will ever become MPs, and that's not good.

I say outsource it all to the private sector - will be far more cost effective, or cap their pay rises at 1% for the next 3 years, if it's good enough for the poor, it's good enough for them.

Glad to see there are other sane people in here that think they need to be paid more to attract competent professionals instead of idealists and the seriously wealthy.

So ~£68K salary. Plus expenses. The MP we were discussing the other day uses a driver and a car to get to and from work (excepting the staged train journey) so there are no travel costs. How many of us can say that. 2nd home allowances + furniture on expenses. Which is yours to keep and dispose of how you see fit. I have limits for what I can reasonably claim. I have to provide receipts for everything. Remind me again what the limit is below which a receipt does not have to be provided? Don't think that just because there has been a clamp down it doesn't mean snouts are not in very well stocked troughs.

Junior headteachers on more? Source? And if true I would guess that a head teacher works significantly longer hours than an MP.

£68 does not seem a fortune, true but with all the perks and pension it's not a bad little earner.

#edit - sorry, I forgot about the additional earnings as directors, advisors, allowing their name to be used on company stationary etc.

Junior headteachers on more? Source?

[url= http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary.aspx ]At £23,010, the average starting salary in teaching is high compared to the average graduate starting salary. Experienced teachers can earn up to £64,000 in London and £56,000 outside London, while head teachers can reach a salary of between £42,379 and £112,000. [/url]

You know what I think. I think you should get rid of your grocers' apostrophe.

[i]The MP we were discussing the other day uses a driver and a car to get to and from work (excepting the staged train journey) so there are no travel costs.[/i]

He's a Minister so different rules etc.

So the argument being put forward is that if MPs receive a higher salary and expenses package it will attract a higher calibre of candidate. Just like all the banks did - and look at the f***ing mess they have left behind, not to mention the illegal activity overpaid bankers engaged in such as Libor fixing and mis-selling of various financial instruments.

The existing package for MPs is significantly above the national average, and the payment on leaving office is also substantial. People should be doing these jobs because they want to not just for mercenary reasons.

This thread shows that its not the majority of MPs who are out of touch with reality. Those who do, do. Those who can't, moan about those that do. Thankfully the adults are running the country.

seba560 - Member
Junior headteachers on more? Source?
At £23,010, the average starting salary in teaching is high compared to the average graduate starting salary. Experienced teachers can earn up to £64,000 in London and £56,000 outside London, while head teachers can reach a salary of between £42,379 and £112,000.

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

Your so far from the truth you couldn't see it with the Hubble telescope.

Your (sic) so far from the truth you couldn't see it with the Hubble telescope.

Well you are the one quoting that rubbish.

What was your point in the quote?

+1 on the DA Junky!

I don't know any other self employed people on a final salary pension scheme, do you ?

^^This

+ 1 Coyote

Glad to see there are other sane people in here that think they need to be paid more to attract competent professionals instead of idealists and the seriously wealthy.

They should be competent at that salary already... The reason many MP's come from a seriously wealthy background is not based on the 'low' salary surely...? More to do with how our society is positively biased towards the products of the public schools?

I think if you did an anonymous survey of any profession, you would get the same result.

Giving MPs a pay rise on this scale, at this time would cause a full-on riot. The general public still haven't forgiven MPs for the institutionalised dishonesty of the expenses scandal.

For me, the principles are pretty clear:
MPs should be paid in-line with a senior (ish) management position in the private sector - theirs is a position of considerable responsibility after all.
MPs should be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The problem was that the system of paying expenses was so ridiculously ill-managed, that people took the p*ss. Almost every medium-sized business in the world runs an expenses system - it's not that hard.
MPs should not be able to have another paying position during their tenure.... that's asking for trouble, and surely implies that they are not working full-time as an MP.

[s]Almost[/s] [s]e[/s]Every [s]medium-sized[/s] business in the world runs an expenses system - it's not that hard

FIFY

MPs [b]should not[/b] be able to have another paying position during their tenure.... that's asking for trouble, and surely implies that they are [b]not working full-time as an MP[/b].

Couldn't agree more. The current package is more than adequate for what they do. Which is by and large nod when asked and give the prescribed answer when required. They are all a bunch of oxygen thieves.

@seba560. I think you'll find that headteachers (WTF is a "junior headteacher" BTW) on the larger packages will have significantly more responsibility than the average MP.

Well you are the one quoting that rubbish.

What was your point in the quote?

@seba560. I think you'll find that headteachers (WTF is a "junior headteacher" BTW) on the larger packages will have significantly more responsibility than the average MP.

Pay them the national average wage, if they want more then they have to enact policies that raises everyone's living and pay standards.

The expense scandal was basically because they were/are [s]underpaid[/s] on the rob,

FTFY

"No expenses at all" just isn't realistic (unless you can tell me why the MP with responsibility for the outer Hebrides should be much worse off than the MP for Westminster). They just have to keep it reasonable, and not take the piss, just like in any other job where work related expenses are reimbursed (like mine).

I wouldn't want my expenses to be considered part of my perks. I get paid expenses when I have to travel to work, which can often mean international flights. It's not a perk, it's travel for work. I make a point of staying in non-fancy hotels, and hunting around for a good value place to eat, rather than just doing £30-40 a night in hotel restaurants that are crap value anyway.

At no point do I buy duck houses, big TVs, or do any of the other cliched expenses stuff like lapdancing and getting sloshed on the company ticket. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, who knows.

I guess in the course of that I probably run up five-figure expenses in a year, but none of that is any perk to me, it's just the cost to my company of sending me places to work. But the day I take money from that that is nothing to do with normal business expenses, in a defined set of rules, is the day I'm breaking criminal law, no matter what I'm paid.

I am a bit out of touch with politics, what do the useless bunch of tits do anyway?

I think this is quite interesting

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487 ]On average, Tories said their salary should be £96,740, while Lib Dems thought the right amount was £78,361 and Labour £77,322. Other parties put the figure at £75,091.
[/url]

demonstrates nicely what social strata the parties are part of/ aiming for

and I dont necessarily think they dont deserve a decent salary but they are ripping the living pi$$ out of us on expenses,despite a few sacrificial lambs they got away with it too.

what really grates is the harshness of the cuts and the rhetoric they are thumping home (gleefully taken up by the rightwing press) about benefit fraudster scum and public sector workers and their golden pensions being responsible for the debt

when they themselves have a final salary scheme with state contributions that make teachers, doctors, soldiers etc look on with disbelief
of course they do have to get into work on time

As I understand it, the reason the whole expenses thing got so out of hand in the first place was that MPs had voted to freeze their own pay (or raise less than inflation) for years because they realised to do otherwise was political suicide - so instead the expenses were gradually increased and rules made laxer to make up the "shortfall" which is a pretty shoddy situation.
(Note, very few MPs in the "expenses scandal" actually broke the rules, and only a handful were found to have broken the law)

Keep pay competitive with private sector senior(ish) management (as batfink say), tighten then expenses rules, then increase transparency by publishing all expenses and any outside income from other jobs etc

The problem with this is the difference in what we/they define as a 'salary'. For the rest of us, our salary is set amount. Out of this we take our essential living expenses: rent/mortgage, transport, food, heating, power etc. What left at the end - usually not much - is our disposable income.

That's not with the case these parasites. They claim for everything. transport, accommodation, expenses of all descriptions ... FFS they even get subsidised bars and restaurants to trough at. So after they've claimed for everything, their headline salary is pretty much all what we'd refer to as 'disposable income'

I wish I could claim for everything, so that my salary could all be disposable income, to then be spaffed away on bikes, more bikes, maybe buying a few houses, more bikes etc. I'd be a very happy bunny

So, to summarise... they're all greedy self-serving ****s!!!

Expenses can be tightened really easily.

Bit of brownfield land. Build a halls of residence type place; single bed flat with kitchen, fully furnished to a [i]reasonable[/i] level. Shuttle bus service between there and H.o.C. That's the 2nd home purchase / rent, furniture, maintenance and travel expenses sorted. Should save a few quid.

MP's need to get their collective heads around the fact that they are elected civil [b]servants[/b]. They are not some elite bunch of high flyers. By and large they are weasels who have arse-kissed their way through the party ranks without ever doing a real job in their worthless careers.

I can't think of any that would last two minutes in any area of the company I work for.

kimbers +1

I know someone who went into Parliament at the last election. Prior to that they were running a successful business they started and which they no longer have any day to day involvement in / pay from. Since being elected, the person has been extremely visible in policy making around science and trade / industry development in the same area their old business operated in but has seen their effective remuneration fall from c£150K a year to £65K.

With the best will in the world, most MPs don't fleece the expenses system and having done it myself, spending all week away from home for years on end is a tough gig - not least for the families of MPs.

So for pay then, my observation is that if we want experienced, knowledgeable, successful people to lead our country and use their experience to develop UK Plc, then a big pay cut is a hard sell. In contrast, there are plenty of MPs who have never done anything apart from politics / trade union work and for whom becoming an MP was a big step up in pay - John Prescott's tenure in the ODPM is almost a case study in what happens when someone with no leadership experience or common sense lands a role with a big budget - the total fraud and overpayments he was warned would happen if he implemented the tax credit system without any of the recommended changes made now runs to £440B and is largely due to his poor decision making.

One other point - someone on the first page asked which other profession of self employed people get a final salary scheme and the answer is most GPs. As an aside one of our local GPs made £650K 2 years ago which puts him on £590K more than an MP despite not actually seeing many patients himself - even he was "underpaid" compared to another GP in kent who made £770K plus pension.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-271688987.html

Sense spoken rob. 🙂

experienced, knowledgeable, successful people to lead our country and use their experience to develop UK Plc

The problem with this is that it discounts many many people who are intelligent capable and have real life experiences to offer. What on earth makes a "business leader" any more suitable than a mechanic to be a member of parliament. In fact its this supposed strategy that has lead to such an out of touch parliament.

MSP - not sure it does to be honest.

If we want MPs who can actually get things done, deal with complexity and make rationale decisions, for the most part people with those attributes will have some track record of success no matter what background they come from (whether it be nursing, social care, private sector or other).

I'd actually argue that for ministerial positions where significant leadership experience is a pre-requisite (leading a whitehall department of 10,000+ isn't something you can learn on the job) it would be better to have a "leader" of any flavour rather than a mechanic (and for clarity - this could be someone who has led a large charity, company, part of the sector, whatever). What we often get is MPs and Ministers making poor decisions and wasting huge amounts of our money because they frankly don't have enough experience to operate successfully at the level required by the job.

my observation is that if we want experienced, knowledgeable, successful people to lead our country and use their experience to develop UK Plc, then a big pay cut is a hard sell

I dont want those sorts of people and I dont refer to the place I live as UKL plc.

Why this emphasis that you need to have achieved massively and be a high earner in order to be a good MP/ I see no link here at all. Your job is to represent the people - this is easier to do if you have lived a life like one of them and continue to do so rather than if you moan about only have 68 K per year to live on.

What i want is people who have some basic idea about what it is to live life as a normal citizen.

PS you were a bit vague about the company [ no pay so just dividends then??]asI assume its still tradin

If i wanted someoen to start up a business Iwould ask your mate but I dont see the link

Surprised so many of you want to make sure MPs are rich tbh and that we attract the well off v the salary. Sure;y its a calling and not something one does for the money but to make the world a better place. If you wont do it for that salary then fine. i am ok with this as we seem to have selected out the greedy [ but not the wealthy] from representing us.

EDIT: Had not seen your reply. I agree you may well want talent for a minister but we are discussing MPs. Still be enough talent to draw from as much of it seems to be political favour rather then competency anyway - for all parties.

MSP makes a very good point. You could classify "business leaders" as ruthless cost cutters with profit as the only goal. You really want a country run by a government run by Fred Goodwins? MPs should come from across the board but should be people with real life experience. People who know what it is like to deal with everyday problems, who can [i]empathise[/i]. Not a bunch of career droids without a shred of understanding of what it means to strive for something rather than rimming your way to the top.

spending all week away from home for years on end is a tough gig - not least for the families of MPs.

There are a good many people doing this without the creature comforts afforded to our MPs. They chose to do it. Suck it up.

What we often get is MPs and Ministers making poor decisions and wasting huge amounts of our money because they [s]frankly don't have enough experience to operate successfully at the level required by the job[/s] have their own agendas and are keen to be seen to "make a difference" rather than listening to civil servants who actually know what they are talking about.

Michael Gove
George Osbourne
Jeremy Hunt

You need more examples of incompetent career weasels?

 

do you want people with true convictions, or as we have mainly now--'careerists'- i think a peoples soviet would be a vast improvement on the hog trough that is westminster....of course it would need some direct action , but the idea is sound..

I dont want those sorts of people and I dont refer to the place I live as UKL plc

+1

The leadership should be motivated by a desire to improve the society rather than there own pay packet.

Fat chance

robdixon - Member
With the best will in the world, most MPs don't fleece the expenses system and having done it myself, spending all week away from home for years on end is a tough gig - not least for the families of MPs.

Makes me think of the the Armed Forces... They get paid the same don't they...Oh hang on....

^ Killer Punch ^

the results speak for themselves surely, look where the current gang of "experienced, knowledgeable, successful people" have got us

You lot are really missing not having the news of the world to read aren't you.

^^nope

The leadership should be motivated by a desire to improve the society rather than there own pay packet.

Okay. Let's take it to the other extreme and say being an MP paid nothing at all - other than out of pocket expenses, like much charity work.

Do you think that would attract the best people for the job?

Personally I think you'd get a heady mix of doe-eyed idealists, pensioners and folk rich enough that they didn't need to work for money.

The problem with this is that it discounts many many people who are intelligent capable and have real life experiences to offer. What on earth makes a "business leader" any more suitable than a mechanic to be a member of parliament.

Nothing at all.

But the theory is that the "mechanic" would (I assume) get a massive pay increase by becoming an MP, whereas the "business leader" faces an equally massive pay cut.

So it doesn't discount the mechanic, in fact it puts a large barrier in place for the successful business leader.

That's why so many MPs are mechanics... erm.. oh.. 😀