[Closed] We're all in this together..

Who's going to be first to click the dodgy link?

they're not even keeping up - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24983178 ]a better deal[/url]

Who's going to be first to click the dodgy link?

That would have been me. The number itself means little and is disconnected with the amount of responsibility MPs have. The bigger questions as I see them are about commitment to the job, time and focus given other businesses many have on the go (or are board members for).

This is nothing short of a disgrace. I have no idea how the Tories and Condems will be able to lok in the mirror.

a_a

I should think they'll be reading The Telegraph & The Independant instead.

I currently earn about the same as a backbencher. All I can say is that I wouldn't swap my job for theirs and another 11%. OK, they don't all work as hard as they could I'm sure, but most take on a huge amount of responsibility and hassle and spend most of their week away from their family. They face the constant scrutiny (rightly in the main) of the press and public, and many are at risk of losing their career every five years. **** that.

Thats not really the point though bol. The point is at a time when the condems have raped the rest of the public sector this just should not happen.

Bol

They knew the conditions when they took the job on. You don't like it don't do it.

It's funny how the government ignored a independent review into my pay.

1. The MPs haven't asked for it
2. The MPs have asked for it to be postponed but have no power to stop it as it's exactly what the public said they wanted I.e. MPs pay set by an independent third party
3. The current government elected to take reduced salaries compared to the last government - from memory I think they took pay reductions of around 15%
4. Most MPs earn less than head teachers and doctors (50% less than the latter) but historically have earned similar amounts
5. Most members of the public think they are overpaid but are completely ignorant to the real work of MPs which isn't in the shouty chamber but in endless select committees and local constituency surgeries several evenings a week.

Most people would want a lot more than £65k for a job that takes then away from friends and family every week.

I wouldn't do their job for what they're being paid, just to end up working long hours, away from home, with a good chance of being chucked out after five years, occasionally attacked by machete wielding nutters, and then to be called a parasite at the end of it all.

I wouldn't do their job for what they're being paid, just to end up working long hours, away from home, with a good chance of being chucked out after five years, occasionally attacked by machete wielding nutters, and then to be called a parasite at the end of it all.

That's your average PS worker if you believe the condems

I work in the public sector and I can't think of a thing that the Tories have ever done that I agree with. I suppose I just find the demonisation of MPs sticks in my throat a bit. They're an easy target. Ironically just like lots of us in the public sector. They didn't choose the pay rise, but I bet a lot of them welcome it, given their hourly rate doesn't compare very well with what they would get elsewhere.

The issue for me isnt whether its appropriate its about the fact that the condems have urged pay restraint and cut funding and jobs and then this happens. They make the laws they could stop this. I'm sure if I set up an indepedent body to look at teachers pay it would suggest a pay rise for me! The other point is there are plenty of people wanting to be MP's we dont have shortages like teachers. That suggests to me they are overpaid.

working long hours, away from home, with a good chance of being chucked out after five years, occasionally attacked by machete wielding nutters, and then to be called a parasite at the end of it all

And thats before the "its a vocation done for love" crap that gets trotted out when teachers strike.

They will go through the motions of saying how unacceptable it is, and emphasising that they have bo influence upon the process; but the award will be made, and of course they will grudginly aceept it. The public will be fooled again, and out of range of any recording equipment, the MPs will indulge in a quiet moment of smug self-congratulation and thankfulness that the Process has once again delivered.

I've just secured a position back in the private sector after 6 years in the Civil Service. I feel like I've had a lucky escape.

I appreciate that the MPs haven't asked for this and the party leaders are against it, but this is happening against a background of public sector workers having a 2 year pay freeze and a 1% pay cap for 2 if not 3 years; it just sends out the wrong message. Plus, don't forget a lot of MPs can't be working that hard as they have other jobs which usually pay much more than their parliamentary wages.

They are losing the final salary pension in 2015 though - it's part of a wider set of pay reforms. If there are loads of aggrieved public sector workers ("raped by the condems" - FFS!) who are willing to give up their own final salary pensions for a one off 11% pay rise I'm sure that the current or future Chancellor would only be too happy to make that a reality.

I wouldn't necessarily begrudge them the payv rise if the expenses system , second home etc wasn't so laughably corrupt
Despite over a million having to be paid back last time only a couple were prosecuted
And it seems that nothing has changed there
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&issue=1354

Yes an 11% pay rise would soften the blow
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/careers/payandpensions/b00204965/proposed-teacher-pension-scheme-reforms

If there are loads of aggrieved public sector workers ("raped by the condems" - FFS!) who are willing to give up their own final salary pensions for a one off 11% pay rise I'm sure that the current or future Chancellor would only be too happy to make that a reality.

He was happier than that as it was taken off us for no pay rise and this won't be a one off pay rise of 11%.

And a big increase in our contributions.

An 11% rise for your average PS worker circa £20k isn't going to give a big a rise as an MP on £65k.

11% rise of **** all is **** all

I'd be happy to try it!

I'm sorry, but the hard, responsible job argument just doesn't cut it..

I'm sure a huge number of people view their own job as having a great deal of responsibility and accountability, with long hours and an uncertain future.. but many of them will be earning a third of an MPs salary

and sorry but if you consider 65k to be **** all, you live with your pampered head in the clouds

If MP's actually looked after the interests of the people maybe they would be underpaid.

For the job they should be doing I think MPs are under paid. This was quite hard for me to come to terms with, particularly with the behavior of the current government towards public sector workers (for the record I do work in the public sector and earn nowhere near what MPs currently make).

However, particularly after this wage hike, I think being an MP should be your [u]only[/u] job. No directorships, other jobs, etc. and a ban of sitting on boards of directors for 5 years after leaving Parliament.

Maybe if it were more difficult for them to use their power and influence for personal gain but were better remunerated we could get more people into parliament for the right reasons rather than career politicians using it as a backdoor to more power and money.

FFS, the job of a back-bench MP is to do as they're told.
Sit in the chamber, shout "hear, hear" or "shaaaame" in a pathetic school-playground style, Occasionally read out a printed question that is given to you

... and then remember to walk out of the correct exit, doing as you're told

Beyond that, mostly there's just padding you wallet or grooming contacts for padding your wallet after you're sacked

Seventy grand, you say ?
ooooh, I dunno, depends on the package (as all you private sector folk like to say 😉 ). Oh, yeah, it's pretty much the best one in existence isn't it ?

Just5minutes +1 but since when have the facts got in the way of a good rant!!! Then again the Beeb and the broadsheets could be getting it all wrong too.

They voted against it, didn't they?

Course they did, knowing that voting against it makes no difference - a load of posturing.

I take it then, if they are all so against it, they will be giving, say, 9% to good causes?

Didn't think so.

I'd like a 3% pay rise never mind 11% just something that balances me out rather than a drop would be good. But if your offering 11% I'd take it if you don't mind.

Just5minutes plus 2

Most MPs are really committed and hard working, some are not fundamentally we have a decent elected representative body, try Italy and USA for some interesting contrasts.

re Public Sector and pay just comfort yourselves with the idea there will be no PS in 6 years and most local authorities will be bankrupt, whilst the quangos of Serco and G4S take billions out of the governmental purse and still 'make mistakes in charging' especially for 'tagging' prisoners.

Just5minutes +1 but since when have the facts got in the way of a good rant!!! Then

yes just5minutes had, sadly not been in posession of the facts when he posted.

Maybe if we could get this payrise linked to a requirement to have a "none of the above" option on ballot papers it would gain support? Certainly something I would like to see. Maybe this would help shift the greedy and morally dubious out of politics.

Imagine how wonderful it would be if the 35% of people who didn't vote last time, along with all those who did vote but were unhappy with the least worst choices on offer, came out and said none of you represent me or my ideals. Maybe then we could get reform.

Honestly how "responsible" are MPs? They vote how they're told and read what their given. Surgeries? When I've been, or when some-one contacts me from an MP's surgery, it's an unpaid party "apprentice", or a secretary. One I spoke with was a "researcher"...He was 17 and doing it part time whilst doing A-levels...

Lots of late night meetings and committees, trying hard not to have your name attached to any radical decision, or something that's going to cost money...right, that's a tough gig.

An 11% pay increase at the end of 5 years of recession when the "hard working families" they claim to represent are at real risk of going hungry and cold this winter is flat out wrong.

In it together...right up until the point when we're not.

They are losing the final salary pension in 2015 though - it's part of a wider set of pay reforms. If there are loads of aggrieved public sector workers ("raped by the condems" - FFS!) who are willing to give up their own final salary pensions for a one off 11% pay rise I'm sure that the current or future Chancellor would only be too happy to make that a reality.

I don't get a final salary pension or an 11% pay rise. I've only had one inflationary pay rise in five years.

AA, so unlike the rest of us, you have advanced copy of the IPSA report with the explanation of how they came to their recommendations? May we have a précis of how the independent body came to their conclusions and how and why they (reportedly) ignored the advice/recommendations of all three main parties? Should we now bin the IPSA in favour of some other body? It would be good to learn after my ride, thanks!

As above, perhaps they could all give the pay rises to charity, seeing as they don't want them. Maybe the money could go to help the people who are cold and hungry this winter thanks to the government's policies.

Just5mins +3 (just8 mins)?

I find the whole parasite thing nasty, and the expenses business was generally blown way out of proportion and impacts of the over-reaction, have filtered all the way down to 'normal' ps workers, with increased bureaucracy to claim any ex's that may be left, costing more to administer than the value of the claims!

Actually, come to think of it, they can have a pay rise...But like mine, it has to be linked to performance, a set of KPIs based on a budget and a set of monthly P&L accounts...just like the private sector they all profess to love so much.

Do a good job, earn more money, what could be fairer than that?

Being an mp nowadays isn't so much a job, as a sort of extended interview process for lucrative directorships. You can look at who is in what department, then guess which firm they'll end up on the board of. Though I'm sure this doesn't unduly influence their policy decisions. Honest

In a few years time Andrew Landsley and Jeremy hunt will be working for private healthcare companies, getting fat on NHS contracts, Gove at a private education company, gorging itself on Free Schools, Gidiot and Dave on the boards of various banks, and Pickles the British federation of pie makers!

Ironically, the people who were most shameless about this were Nu Labour. They out-toried the Tory's

I have no idea how the Tories and Condems will be able to lok in the mirror

[img] [/img]

Teamhurtmore, does it matter what the report says I thought the country was bankrupt and the public sector has to make sacrifices??

Coincidentally 11% is almost exactly my real-world pay cut as a public sector employee over the last couple of years. But hey, as long as we're all in it together.

One of the interesting arguments for the pay rise is that historically they had parity in pay to professions such as doctors and head-teachers.
As I understand, and I could well be wrong, you need absolutely no qualifications to become an M.P. (arguably good, arguably bad), but given the lack of formal professional qualifications required, maybe they should be looking for parity with other jobs where formal qualifications are not a requirement.

Yes it does matter, I would like to know the grounds for the pay rise like you. All the parties expressed the view that there should be no rise (with individual dissenters), so why does the IPSA think differently? Even your mate Gove was opposed to it.

There seems to be a lot of pre-judging going on in the meantime.

Yes it does matter, I would like to know the grounds for the pay rise like you. All the parties expressed the view that there should be no rise (with individual dissenters), so why does the IPSA think differently? Even your mate Gove was opposed to it.

no I dont give a shit how its justified, the effective pay cut and pension changes for the other public sector workers were based on political idealogy backed by an economic downturn and high debt levels they were in no way based on what anyone deserves. Why should MP's be any different? Why do they get an independent body to decide whats fair. Do we have a shortage of people wanting to be MP's or a crisis of retention of MP's?

I agree, why should they be different? And why should they be ignoring the people that some seem to be blaming on the previous page but who also agree with you. Hence I do give a shit why this body is recommending this pay rise among other changes.

I thought that IPSA was set up after the expenses scandal to bring rigour to the setting of pay and benefits for MPs ie in response to a need to clean the whole area up. If the teaching industry is riddled with the same problems, perhaps you could ask for a similar body? But Ihadn't realised that teachers were as bad as MPs when it came to fiddling expenses. That's definitely not my experince.

Eh? You dont half spout from rubbish. Who set up IPSA?

The argument of 'oh well we have to pay them more so they don't fiddle their expenses as much' doesn't really hold much water I'm afraid.

But Ihadn't realised that teachers were as bad as MPs when it came to fiddling expenses. That's definitely not my experince.

Why do you have to put trolly little comments like this in virtually all your posts?

I've got no problem with a 11% payrise as long as they cut headcount to match. Actually lets double their pay and get rid of half of them.

Well tell me AA, who did set it up and why?

Grum, AA is arguing for an IPSA equivalent for teachers? According to the IPSA website, it was set up because self regulation by MPs failed most notably with expenses. So what evidence is there that teachers fiddle expenses or that they are paid to much etc. otherwise why call for a body with that specific purpose? Legitimate question to what seems to be an odd request from a teacher.

The tolling is the BS accusations made at the LDs or the Tories or certain individuals when they have nothing to do with it. IPSA claim to have new rules that, "are fair to MPs and the public purse, workable and, crucially, transparent.....we focus in our main duty: to serve the interests of the public."

So we need to see the details of the report to see if this independent body is doing it job in serving our interests. Trolling about policical parties, is just that.....still no need to let fact gets in the way of a good rant.

Grum, AA is arguing for an IPSA equivalent for teachers? According to the IPSA website, it was set up because self regulation by MPs failed most notably with expenses. So what evidence is there that teachers fiddle expenses or that they are paid to much etc. otherwise why call for a body with that specific purpose? Legitimate question to what seems to be an odd request from a teacher.

can you actually read? Let me know when you want to engage in an adult discussion.

Well an adult discussion would require focusing on the facts in front of us. Starting with who is responsible? Whose interest are they serving? Why have they made this recommendation when politicians are arguing against then? Etc.

As far as I can see we only have partial answers to that so it wouldn't be very adult to start blaming anyone let alone people who have nothing to do with it. Unless the fun is merely in the ranting.

anagallis_arvensis - Member 
This is nothing short of a disgrace. I have no idea how the Tories and Condems will be able to lok in the mirror.

I can read, but if I am misinterpreting your OP please tell me where. Seems like you are criticising the coalition rather than the independent IPSA who seem to be the ones (possibly) at fault here? Danny Alexander seemed quite clear on this earlier today on the ITN news.

Well you have twice expressed my views for me when in fact they are nowhere near my views. If you want to debate you have to be willing to read what others post.

(if that is the case) then you will appreciate how frustrating it must be for likes of the aforementioned Danny Alexander when people misquote and misrepresent them in order to make (false) points on a forum. There are reasons why looking in the mirror might be difficult for him, but arguing for restraint on MPs pay is hardly likely to be one of them.

"I would still appeal to IPSA even at this late stage to recognise that the economic climate - the climate of pay for people in the public sector particularly - is one of continuing restraint and that same principle should be applied to MPs," he said.

Danny Alexander on ITN News

You are talking in riddles again. Clearly Mr Alexanda realises that its massively hypocritical.
So its ok for you to deliberatly misinterpret my posts because someone else has misquoted Alexander even if no one actually has.

So why should he (or any other coalition or even Labour MP) have trouble looking themselves in the mirror (your OP) when an independent body makes recommendations that they, you and I disagree with?

It doesn't seem hypocritical, rather quite clear. In his opinion, the same principles should be applied to MPs and other public sector workers. Would you not argue the same thing?

You have had several goes at MPs ("parasites", look in the mirror etc) when they (largely) seem to be agreeing with you. Seems rather odd.

Here's one of those nasty Tories:

Mr Hammond said the Cabinet should take a collective decision about what to do with the additional funds. Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, he said: “So long as I'm the Defence Secretary presiding over a situation where the troops that serve our country so brilliantly are facing a one per cent pay rise, I won't be taking a pay increase. "Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether MPs' pay is too high, too low, comparable to other people, at a time when we are asking people across the public sector - nurses, doctors, teachers - to accept pay restraint, Members of Parliament have to be seen to be leading the way.

That link to the pension scheme changes was interesting reading. Most people in the private sector would love to have even the revised benefits.

If you want to debate you have to be willing to read what others post.

So it seems a number of condems agree with me its a farcical disgrace. It seems ipsa are about as much use as the ipc

I think a lot of people, myself included, agree with you AA that its a mistake - including Labour, Tory and LibDems MPS. [b]Hence the focus should be on those responsible[/b]. In a few days, we will be able to hear the full logic (or otherwise) behind this decision - cue Sir Ian Kennedy, who appears to be the main dissenter here.

In the meantime, as one Labour MP put it, ""[b]We will obviously wait to see what the final proposals are[/b]...". Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself!

As MP's pay takes in the pay scales of their 'peers', I suppose one element taken into consideration here is boardroom pay, which has risen an average of 14% this year (yet again!).

It might be a good thing to widen the argument a bit here, and ask what economic miracles have been happening at the top of British companies to warrant that kind of reward (yet again!). Because if they've been busy turning British companies into global corporate success stories with their inspirational and innovative leadership, I must have missed it. And they've certainly been reluctant to see their employees share in this economic nirvana they've created

Indeed but my original point was that its the condems who have engaged in a crusade against the public sector whilst pleading poverty as the cause in the light of that it must be hard to show their faces in public if the dont come out against it.

Fine, which presumably is why they argued against this proposal now and BEFORE as did the Labour MPs (whose spending plans were broadly the same). So I still cant see the problem or why in this case they are "parasites". But at least the rest is settled (the independent body/role of IPSA etc was a deliberate leg pull in this context 😉 BTW). But as for giving a shit about the actual proposals, that was straight - it is important to see how this is being argued to be "in our interests."

This reminds me of a Yes Minister sketch when Sir Humphrey was explaining that independent committees are like trains - they still need tracks to guide them to the correct destination.

Job shop place today in liverpool all the jobs where offering 6.19 per hour, one job for a qualified bricklayer was 10 quid an hour.

Somebody is taking the piss on the jobs front, and its obviously those MP,s who mostly havent ever worked in industry or construction.

An interesting stat: if the minimum wage had kept pace with average increases in boardroom pay since it's introduction, it would now stand at £20 an hour. It's £6.15.

I wonder which one of these figures our elected representatives will be wanting to peg their own pay scales against? Hmmmmmm

By the looks of things neither?

If Jack Straw is a reliable guide then it appears that they benchmark themselves against secondary school headmasters, local gov officials and senior journalists.

Perhaps that's an idea then? MP's pay increases at the same rate as the minimum wage. Seeing as for vast parts of this countries population, in all types of jobs, the minimum wage has just become the wage. Vastly profitable businesses seeing fit to pay their staff the legal minimum, and not a penny more!

There was another interesting stat announced today: over half the households classed as below the poverty line are in employment! Something to be proud of eh? This wonderfully egalitarian society of ours.I doubt there were any MP's in that number.

There is a pressing need for a review of pay scales in this country. As we as taxpayers pick up the bill for the failure of employers to pay a living wage. But it isn't for MP's

Perhaps we could pay them in Euros - that should anger you both equally 😉

I almost feel sorry for them as its not thier fault the commission did this and I doubt any of them, from all sides, want to , publicly at least, defend it

How can you 'review pay scales'. You get paid what the market will bare.

Just keep cutting mp salaries until less than 1000 apply.

Seeing as for vast parts of this countries population, in all types of jobs, the minimum wage has just become the wage

Really?!? Headlines aside, I fail to see the direct link between min wages irrespective of skill levels etc and the salaries of MPs.

The recent numbers that concern me more related to household debt. According to last week's FT

1/3 of all mortgage debt is held by households who have borrowed more that 4x their income
1/6 is held by households who have less than £200 left a month after spending on essentials

So if current UN trends carry on and go <7% poss in 2014 and interest rates start to rise, there are lots of very vulnerable, indebted people out there. Good job one of our main policies is not to encourage them to take on more debt at the moment - oh wait a minute????? The current upturn is being driven by consumption and housing - incredible!?!?

If we want to attack the coalition, this seems far safer ground to focus on.

You get paid what the market will bare.

Just keep cutting mp salaries until less than 1000 apply.

And we'll only have one person on each ballot paper 🙂

Actually, years ago you didn't get paid at all for being an MP, but this meant the only people who could be MPs were independently wealthy and therefore not representative of the population.

Of course, most of our government are wealthy and not representative, but there are a lot of normal people working as MPs too.