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

[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.

[url= http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-stop-the-11-pay-rise-for-mps-salaries?share_id=gEqZoocSjg&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition ]Stop the 11% pay rise for MPs' salaries[/url]

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

Absolutely but it never hurts for them to hand over more ammunition, what ever the rights or wrongs it is a PR debacle and shows to many how out of touch with real life they are. Hearing some MP's intern trying to defend it this morning was cringeworthy.

Clearly power corrupts.

It's obviously not "we are (all in it together)", more like "you are (all in it on your own) We're all right actually"