[Closed] MP's Pay rise

Makes more sense to pay them properly and stop the expenses fiddling, it *should* reduce corruption, it won't as its a Tory hobby, but it should.

Remember it's 1% for the next 4yrs for PS workers.

No doubt MP'S will go up again next year.

Makes more sense to pay them properly and stop the expenses fiddling

Indeed. Another reasonable argument is that we don't want our MPs to be limited to people who are independently wealthy enough to take the comparatively* low pay in exchange for some power.

.

* when compared to other positions of responsibility.

Would love to know if there's a way to stop that happening, this being a democracy and all.

Whatever - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. £74k is still cheap for someone who can actually get elected to Parliament.

Whatever - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. £74k is still cheap for someone who can actually get elected to Parliament.

bruneep - Member

Remember it's 1% for the next 4yrs for PS workers.

No doubt MP'S will go up again next year.

IPSA say after this rise it'll be linked to public sector pay:

The independent watchdog, set up to bring in and run a new expenses and pay system for MPs after the expenses scandal of 2009, says in future MPs' pay would rise in line with average rises in the public sector.

The measure being used by Ipsa has also been negative in the past as a result of job cuts - and the watchdog's report stated: "If these data show that public sector earnings have in fact fallen, then MPs' pay will be cut too."

Whilst this is bad timing I actually would like to see our MPs paid more. Their pay might seem impressive compared to 'the average man/woman on the street' but is not great in comparison to other jobs with similar responsibility. It also must be remembered that this pay rise comes along with significant changes to the expenses scheme. Apparently the total renumeration bill for MPs won't go up with this pay rise and associated expenses reform.

I would also like to see MPs paid well but banned from doing any other paid work whilst elected.

£74k is still cheap for someone who can actually get elected to Parliament

Bollocks. There are some areas where a shaved chimp with the right coloured rosette will get elected. What ever happened to "We are all in this together"? MPs cannot be receiving 10% raises when everyone else has to suffer austerity.

Just think how much thats going to raise the national average wage in Scotland 😀

Bollocks. There are some areas where a shaved chimp with the right coloured rosette will get elected. What ever happened to "We are all in this together"? MPs cannot be receiving 10% raises when everyone else has to suffer austerity.

PS - I fully accept that I don't really know that much about it all, TBH.

I would prefer to pay them more but have exclusive rights of employment and limits on where they can work afterwards. That way it should reduce corruption as they can't award contracts to companies they have vested interests in.

It only looks like they are poorly paid comparative to other positions of "trust and power" because executive pay has spiralled out of control for the past 30 years compared to normal jobs. And that has happened because MP's have failed.

Name me another job where in addition to your large salary, you also get your housing, transport, food, etc paid for you, thus making your whole income, disposable income?

And as pointed out, even the PM's job nowadays is just a public job interview for your various obscenely paid directorships, with the companies who've benfitted from your policies?

Yes, we should pay them a lot more because people in other jobs get paid a lot more. In fact people in other jobs what i haven't got get paid more than me, can I has money now?

I would imagine that pay is not the primary motivating factor for anyone interested in becoming an MP.

Make it National Minimum Wage (+expenses) and you'd still get the same lot running for parliament.

I would imagine that pay is not the primary motivating factor for anyone interested in becoming an MP.

I don't have a problem with MPs being paid an attractive salary. To take that salary, though, they MUST resign any executive AND non-executive directorships, they MUST demonstrate that any paid speaking engagements do not adversely affect the time they spend doing their proper job and they MUST turn up in the actual House of Commons for debates 25 hours a week.

Rachel

Name me another job where in addition to your large salary, you also get your [s]housing[/s]accommodation, transport, food, etc paid for you, thus making your whole income, disposable income?

Pretty much any employed business job which requires you to work in more than one location. Flashy of this forum seems to do a lot of travelling for work. I don't think he pays for his airfares to travel between the UK and whenever, and I expect he has an expenses allowance when he is away from home. Being an MP must be a strange job - you HAVE to reside in your constituency (I think) and work in London. If a home counties MP commuting must be easy enough but not an option for most of them.

Usually I like to see a thread of mild rage like this and say "ahhh but..." and try to play devils advocate and how in 'real terms' or whatever it's not as it seems but, I just can't it's absolutely insane.

Yes I understand that there's only a few hundred of them and in the grand scheme of public sector pay it's such a tiny % it wont even register but it downright insulting to have Gideon stand in the Commons to tell us all that austerity is the unpleasant, but necessary only road to future prosperity, and that we should accept large cuts for our lowest paid members of our communities, and start to hint at the end of SSP - but we can afford to give them all 10% pay rises.

To me the 'pay peanuts get monkeys' argument doesn't hold water either, it like saying - I don't mind a gang of 'monkeys' treating me if I'm ill, or educating my children, or controlling crime - that's okay - but the guy who can't be arsed to turn up to vote unless he's forced to and spends their days attending 'meetings' no that ****er needs a big pile of money thrown at them, oh yes.

Also, we shouldn't confuse Cabinet Ministers with mere MPs - members of the cabinet get paid £136k a year.

I do have a degree of sympathy with our elected politicians. Put yourself in their shoes..

You're a prospective MP.
You've a full-time job and family.
There's an election called.
You need to tell your employer that you might not be turning up for work after the election but you don't want to lose your current job if you're not elected.
So, you get in. But the "contract" only lasts five years.
You need to travel to/from London on a regular basis and/or move your kids from school to school.
You can't afford to sell your current house, knowing you need to be in the constituency regularly and you might need it again after five years.
At the next election, regardless of your individual performance, you can be made redundant with no notice (I know there's a "let-down" package)

Without a decent pay and expenses package, the only folk that could [i]afford [/i]to be MPs are those that are already independently wealthy.

So, you get in. But the "contract" only lasts five years.

Not many people in full time jobs have that kind of assurance of employment.

[quote=MSP ]So, you get in. But the "contract" only lasts five years.

Not many people in full time jobs have that kind of assurance of employment.

on the upside you can pay your missus* 40K a year for doing **** all
*Edit other half/offspring

* when compared to other positions of responsibility.

The typical back bench MP doesn't particularly have much responsibility beyond doing what their whip tells them?

In reality, MPs don't either.

They pretty much do do unless they stand down or die.

And lets not forget that they have removed almost all legal protection for the first 2 years of employment for everyone else. They are actually in a pretty strong position for someone taking up a new job compared to what they expect of the general populace.

Luckily thanks to them hobbling the labour movement (alright it did a fair amount of this itself) we'll never have this problem. What a relief.

Pretty much any employed business job which requires you to work in more than one location. Flashy of this forum seems to do a lot of travelling for work. I don't think he pays for his airfares to travel between the UK and whenever, and I expect he has an expenses allowance when he is away from home. Being an MP must be a strange job - you HAVE to reside in your constituency (I think) and work in London. If a home counties MP commuting must be easy enough but not an option for most of them.

+1

fwiw, my expenses bill has exceeded my salary on more than one occasion.

This is a tricky one to call IMO. It's hard to freeze/give mediocre raises in other public sectors and then belt out a 10% rise in parliament. But..at the same time (and maybe my perspective is distorted), but I don't think £74k is excessive for an MP putting in the expected amount of effort. Whether or not each MP does that is a different question, but isn't that true of every job.

on the upside you can pay your missus 40K a year for doing * all

and your sons....

[img] [/img]

despite their being no record of any work ever done, other than them running a club night called [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/hooray-for-henry-the-curious-world-of-henry-conway-859684.html ]'* Off I'm Rich'[/url]

Pretty much any employed business job which requires you to work in more than one location. Flashy of this forum seems to do a lot of travelling for work

yep, I live for free when I'm away on business and live very nicely too as it's all expensed with pretty much no questions asked.

Boy george has let himself go [cross eyed]

I know a lot of people on here are in IT. CWJobs currently lists just over 10000 jobs, of which about 3000 pay more than the MPs proposed new salary. Does it really make sense that running the country is paid less well than messing around with computers?

I'd agree with the other who argue for a not working for anyone else clause. That fact that some MPs seem to be able to hold another 1 or full time jobs at the same time shows a lack of commitment to something that should be more than just a job.

It's not though, is it. They get paid a stipend to cover the fundamentals of existence like quails eggs and moleskin bassoon wallets. They then sell their votes to interest groups using after dinner speeches as a cover for a few grand a pop. They also have non-exec directorships etc. and sit on various panels/boards advisory committees for which they'll receive 'expenses'. As well as writing nonsense in newspapers/going on telly to talk crap. A few really shit ones will have to live off their earnings as will the single figures of honest ones. but they still get a fair whack for what is really a piece of piss.

Does it really make sense that running the country is paid less well than messing around with computers?

The way our present whipped party system works, in a first past the post system, about 95% of MPs have about as much say in running the country as one of the women on the checkout at your local Aldi.

Oh yeah, Brick , you've nailed it. COnsider yourself promoted to hammer.
[b]ITS.
NOT.
A.
JOB.[/b]

Whatever - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. £74k is still cheap for someone who can actually get elected to Parliament.

As I recall, MPs' pay is in something like the top 3% of earnings. Are you suggesting that there is nobody in the remaining 97% with the qualities to be an effective MP?

No Ransos, they're 'talent' and unless we give them the shirt we're standing in they'll **** off somewhere else. Hang on.

For a public sector equivalent, £74k is at the top end for the headteacher of a primary school, and the bottom end of secondary.

For a public sector equivalent, £74k is at the top end for the headteacher of a primary school, and the bottom end of secondary.

Good.

Good.

Good as in that's about right? i.e. you agree with the pay rise?

I thought MPs were public sector employees, that's 1% pay rise.
As for housing, if Westminster is paying for mortgages, why not have all those properties signed over to Westminster then reassigned to whoever wins the seats at the next election? That way, in around 20 years, all the required housing is owned and no expenses get paid on it.

Good as in that's about right? i.e. you agree with the pay rise?

Good as in secondary headteachers have considerable more responsibilities than a backbench MP, so they should earn more.

So you agree that an MP should earn about the same or a little bit less then the lowest paid secondary head and this pay rise is deserved?

So you agree that an MP should earn about the same or a little bit less then the lowest paid secondary head and this pay rise is deserved?

No.

I am intensely relaxed that MPs are well paid, I think it should be considerably more than £74k though.

As for housing, if Westminster is paying for mortgages, why not have all those properties signed over to Westminster then reassigned to whoever wins the seats at the next election? That way, in around 20 years, all the required housing is owned and no expenses get paid on it.

To be fair I've always thought building an MP equivalent to a student halls of residency in central London would make a lot of sense.

As I recall, MPs' pay is in something like the top 3% of earnings. Are you suggesting that there is nobody in the remaining 97% with the qualities to be an effective MP?

Personally I'd hope the country is run by the top 0.1% rather than the top 3%

Footflaps Eh? WTF? What do you think a world authority in academia earns (before publishing, guest speaking, just in their faculty role)? There are other qualifiers for entering parliament than your previous salary and other measures of an individuals contribution to society. We don't want or need a country governed by business people/bankers, they have sufficient power as it is.

Also the country is run by civil servants it's MPs jobs to make the civil servants job more difficult. That's all.

scotroutes - Member

I do have a degree of sympathy with our elected politicians. Put yourself in their shoes..

You're a prospective MP.
You've a full-time job and family.
There's an election called.
You need to tell your employer that you might not be turning up for work after the election but you don't want to lose your current job if you're not elected.
So, you get in. But the "contract" only lasts five years.
You need to travel to/from London on a regular basis and/or move your kids from school to school.
You can't afford to sell your current house, knowing you need to be in the constituency regularly and you might need it again after five years.
At the next election, regardless of your individual performance, you can be made redundant with no notice (I know there's a "let-down" package)

Without a decent pay and expenses package, the only folk that could afford to be MPs are those that are already independently wealthy.

It seems unlikely to me that a prospective MP would being working for anyone bar the Party they represent leading up to a general election, in most constituencies the battle to become the candidate would be harder than the battle to become MP so they would be working for the party for years before.

5 Years is a long time for a fixed term contract, if you see it that way.

Whilst some of their work is in London and the Commons, if they're not in the cabinet (which pays 136k a year) they SHOULD be working in their constituency on behalf of their constituents. Notoriously their travel and accommodation expenses are far more generous than in the Private Sector - no Travelodge for them - I'm not sure if they still can, but for a very long time they were allowed to buy a second home in London to work from whilst parliament is in session, have the tax payer pay the mortgage and keep 100% of the sales proceeds when they sell, plus they can put their entire day to day costs on expenses - £45 lunches, haircuts, phone bills etc - of course they used to charge for duck houses and moat clearing so we should be grateful they toned it down to almost sane levels of pisstaking.

If you want to be bored out of your mind, have a look on BBC parliament when they're debating something non-news worthy you might see 5-6 MPs out of the 600 or so are actually in Westminster.

As others have said, most will employ their partner or other family member as their PA, there's no requirement for entry and no justification of need either - £40k a year.

Again, we shouldn't confuse MPs with Cabinet Ministers.

about 95% of MPs have about as much say in running the country as one of the women on the checkout at your local Aldi.

Personally I'd hope the country is run by the top 0.1% rather than the top 3%

You'd hope, but it's abundantly clear that that isn't the case. And what qualities should we assess to establish who is 'top'?

I realise that neither of these comments is particularly helpful. In the context of the original question, I'd say that MPs salary is ridiculously low for the sort of people you would like to be running the country, but probably somewhat excessive given who actually is in parliament.

Personally I'd hope the country is run by the top 0.1% rather than the top 3%

I hadn't realised than we live in a meritocracy.

Footflaps Eh? WTF? What do you think a world authority in academia earns (before publishing, guest speaking, just in their faculty role)?

I was thinking on the lines of ability, ideally you'd want the very best running the country rather than 'just good enough'. As for what academia earns, that all depends on how good they really are. If they really are world class, then they can nip to the US and get $200k+ at Stanford or Harvard etc.

I hadn't realised than we live in a meritocracy.

[i]meritocracy - government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit[/i]

You'd flipping hope so!

You do realise the opposite of the term 'meritocracy' is 'nepotism'? You'd prefer a bit more nepotism?

You were using income as a proxy for ability which, while it has some merits, (notably ease) it is not a linear relationship.

Seems fine to me. I'd expect an MP to earn six figures all in so there you go.
70m ish wage bill for all of them seems a drop in the ocean and they are supposedly running the country.

I may not actually think this.

meritocracy - government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit

I flipping hope so!

You do realise the opposite of the term 'meritocracy' is 'nepotism'? You'd prefer a bit more nepotism?

I don't know why you're so keen to advance arguments I haven't made.

We do not live in a meritocracy with regard to earnings - i.e there is no reason to believe that the top 0.1% of earners posses more desirable qualities than those in the remaining 99.9%. Many would argue that the opposite is the case.

The argument that we need higher salaries to attract better MPs is bogus.

about 95% of MPs have about as much say in running the country as one of the women on the checkout at your local Aldi.

which might be just as well since there is nothing in place to ensure that they are any better qualified

Qualified? You're familiar with the whole concept of democracy, right? Some people seem to have a rather bizarre take on it. You are meant to be representative of your constituants. You're not turning up at Westminster with your CV asking them for a job. If your consituants.. actual people... want you to represent them, then thats that.

Maybe the problem we've got in this counry is that all the parties think that the 'qualification'is a an expensive private education, PPE at Oxbridge, then a spell in the press office or a thinktank.

Which makes you ideally qualififed to represent other people that had an expensive private education, PPE at Oxbridge, then a spell in the press off office or a thinktank, but not much else, as you've seen * all, so know * all.

So I'd say presumed 'qualifications' are the whole problem!

7m ish wage bill for all of them seems a drop in the ocean and they are supposedly running the country

The Tory Cabinet runs the country.

You were using income as a proxy for ability which, while it has some merits, (notably ease) it is not a linear relationship.

Or rather you assumed I was.

Which makes you ideally qualififed to represent other people that had an expensive private education, PPE at Oxbridge, then a spell in the press off office or a thinktank, but not much else, as you've seen * all, so know * all.

Many people think that we would be better off if more MPs came from "normal" backgrounds - e.g. armed forces, professions, trades, unions. In nearly all of those cases, earnings are less than an MP's salary, so why do we keep seeing the argument that MPs need to earn more?

It was a pretty safe assumpiton though, because you did.

Or did you leap from using 3% of income to 0.1% of another hitherto unalluded to and as yet unidentified dataset expecting us to follow using our paranormal abilities?

[i]I'd say that MPs salary is ridiculously low for the sort of people you would like to be running the country, but probably somewhat excessive given who actually is in parliament. [/i]

Brill comment 🙂

I don't know why you're so keen to advance arguments I haven't made.

We do not live in a meritocracy with regard to earnings - i.e there is no reason to believe that the top 0.1% of earners posses more desirable qualities than those in the remaining 99.9%. Many would argue that the opposite is the case.

The argument that we need higher salaries to attract better MPs is bogus.

Merely pointing out that you appear not to know what the term you used actually means. It has nothing to do with income. I think it would be a reasonable ambition to have the country run by folk from the top 0.1% most able people available, irrespective of their previous salaries. To get a good cross section of varying experiences some of them would have been earning considerably more (headteachers 😉 ), some a lot less (poets, academics etc). I don't think it's unreasonable to make the assumption that a good base salary for the role will help to attract the right folk and also reward those that take the role and work damn hard in it. I want my education select committees full of folk that were education experts in academia or headteachers or ran LEAs. Same for the defence committees etc. I have no issue with them being paid £74K as long as the piss taking in the expenses is curbed at the same tim.

e.g. armed forces, professions, trades, unions. In nearly all of those cases, earnings are less than an MP's salary, so why do we keep seeing the argument that MPs need to earn more?

Because if you were successful in a lot of the careers you have just listed (those are the ones we want) you would be earning more than £68K or whatever MPs are paid at the moment. We've talked about head teachers. Do you know what a naval captain earns, a doctor - hell someone running a successful electrician business!

Well imagine the situation where MPs, elected mayors, health service exectutives, civil servants and senior local council officials sit around the table to discuss the Manchester devolution proposals.

Is it right that the MPs are the lowest paid people in the room?

They could make the brews

Well imagine the situation where MPs, elected mayors, health service exectutives, civil servants and senior local council officials sit around the table to discuss the Manchester devolution proposals.

Is it right that the MPs are the lowest paid people in the room?

Maybe a more structured pay rise would have been more appropriate. Your bog standard backbench MP could have recieved a pay rise of say 4% whereas the cabinet/opposition equivalent could have been given the larger rise.
I think the public wiuld have been more receptive to something along those lines.

Maybe the problem we've got in this counry is that all the parties think that the 'qualification'is a an expensive private education, PPE at Oxbridge, then a spell in the press office or a thinktank.

I would like our MPs to have a pretty good grasp of science and a reasonable grounding in history at least. Which would rule out 95% of the current lot.

as its a Tory hobby

Looks like a pretty even spread across parties to me :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

They should make MP's salary 3 x the minimum wage.

5 Years is a long time for a fixed term contract, if you see it that way.

...add in the g[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11685857/MPs-hidden-perk-7000-pay-rise-equals-85000-pension-boost.html ]old-plated final salary pension[/url]...

Merely pointing out that you appear not to know what the term you used actually means. It has nothing to do with income

You clearly linked it to a reference to income. But do keep digging.

Do you know what a naval captain earns, a doctor - hell someone running a successful electrician business!

A salaried doctor typically earns less than an MP. I don't mind someone in charge of a nuclear submarine earning a bit more, but maybe that's just me.

ransos - Member
A salaried doctor typically earns less than an MP. I don't mind someone in charge of a nuclear submarine earning a bit more, but maybe that's just me.

I'm guessing you found this page: [url] http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/pay-for-doctors/ [/url]

Doctors in training

All doctors in training earn a basic salary and may be paid an additional supplement depending on their working pattern.

In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,636. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £28,076. For a doctor in specialist training the basic salary is between £30,002 and £47,175.

Specialty doctors

Doctors in the specialty doctor grade earn a basic salary of between £37,176 and £69,325.

Consultants

Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £75,249 and £101,451 per year, dependent on years of seniority in the consultant grade. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.

General practitioners

Many general practitioners (GPs) are self employed and hold contracts, either on their own or as part of a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The profit of GPs varies according to the services they provide for their patients and the way they choose to provide these services.

Salaried GPs have a salary range between £55,412 and £83,617. It is up to the employing organisation to decide how much to pay a Salaried GP within this range.

So senior salaried GPs and all consultants will be paid more than MPs.

I think it comes down to the low opinion the public currently has about MPs and the government. We have a low opinion of them so we resent their pay. If we felt they were actually doing a good job representing us and running the country I expect fewer people would resent them for earning the sort of money they currently earn. Whether our perceptions fully match the reality - I don't know.

Given that this pay rise is intended to be accompanied by a commensurate reduction in their expenses and so should not affect their overall remuneration package I can't get too worked up about it. In fact having independently wealthy people like David Cameron and George Osborne trying to make out they're noble by objecting to it is one of the most annoying things about it all.

So senior salaried GPs and all consultants will be paid more than MPs.

Which is why I said "typically", because most doctors are not consultants or senior GPs.

If we felt they were actually doing a good job representing us and running the country I expect fewer people would resent them for earning the sort of money they currently earn. Whether our perceptions fully match the reality - I don't know.

For me, it's more that I can't see what improvement we would get for paying them more.

I think it comes down to the low opinion the public currently has about MPs and the government

I think it comes down to taking comparison to the top few percent of earners who have done incredibly well over the past 30 years against a flat-lining majority.

Pay them the average wage, and expenses (travel subsistence and so on) with the proviso that they'll get a massive bonus at the end of the following parliamentary term (in 10 years) if it can be demonstrably shown via some independent authority that any legislation they have actively taken part in has been of benefit to the nation. Bonus NEVER paid if that that same period, the economy tanks or we have to get involved in a shooty war.