[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?