MPs Pay Rise

[cambsno]

Like pretty much everyone else I was pretty shocked at the pay rise on offer. But thinking about it, shouldnt they actually be paid more?

Obviously want to keep political bias out of this, and I know we like to mock the lying cheats who represent us but if you think about it, is the new salary of circa £75k enough?

Sure, if you work 50 hours a week for £18k a year it is, or if you have been out of work, or even if you are on £35k but have had no pay increase for last 3 years you may think its more than enough, but this job involves running the country (or making decisions that could seriously affect it). There are a number of 'more worthwhile jobs' like nursing and the army but if you think that a head teacher will earn more than this, or that many civil servents or private sector managers earn this or more... Doesnt the PM only get something like £160k a year, which if you think about it is arguably the most important job in the country!

I admit to being torn. Part of me thinks they get enough in allowances, payoffs and they are often inept in their jobs too... but maybe if we paid more, say £200k, we could attract real talent who may make the country better??

Discuss!

 

[srichards]

No. They should receive average salary for their first home and be allowed to claim whatever benefits for 0 income on their second home. That is currently capped at £500 a week. All office functions would be paid for out of a central pool and they would no longer be allowed all these expenses. The commons canteen would offer school level food. If they wanted better they can pay. It's about time they lived like the majority not the rich minority. If anyone of them start whining their income will be cut to NMW for the first home. Then they'll be sorry. MPs are consistently out of touch with how most people live and what they have to put up with. Until they understand they are no damn use running the country whatsoever!

 

[cambsno]

Surely though the only people who would do the job are the ones with other incomes (ie rich people) so would be even more out of touch?

 

[neil_g]

this will last long..

 

[Steve Smith]

MP's pay should be at the same level as they would get in similar management positions in other industries. At the moment, I think it is lower than some comparable government roles in other countries.

Some people think MP's should work for free but if this happens, you end up with a government full of rich people who can afford to do it for nothing who only make decisions which benefit others like them (just like we have now then!).


Steve.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I pretty much agree. £75K isn't a lot of money for the kind of people that MP's need to be (although how many of them are actually fit for purpose and have the necessary qualities is of course another question) so there's an argument that we should pay enough to encourage the very best.

The problem as I see it is their expenses, freebies, consultancies and other perks, legitimate or otherwise. Some of those caught fiddling their expenses have said that they basically just claim what they're entitled to claim, i.e. if they are allowed to make a claim then they have done so regardless of whether or not they have actually spent that money, or needed to. That's wrong to most people, but then accountants and lawyers have always done exactly the same, claiming whatever the rules allow regardless of the amount of time actually spent on the job and regardless of the amount actually paid to the person who did the work that led to the claim...

 

[boyfalldown]

Unusually it seems I don't think its enough. When compared to salaries for other jobs in similar positions of responsibility (allegedly, I don't really want to start a debate about how good a job some do or don't d0) it doesn't seem excessive. And I think paying them properly would hopefully avoid the joke we had with expenses

 

[gramps]

Paying more is no guarantee of getting better quality, the private sector (particularly banking) has seen its fair share of inept, highly paid CEO's who have brought their companies to the brink of disaster and the public in general to misery.
We can only imagine the effect that an MP's pay-rise will have on the unions etc when the average Joe has seen his wage stagnate or reduce ... even if he still has his job :shrug:

 

[MatBin]

They should be entitled to the same pay rise as the rest of us, after all arent we "all in this together"! As for is their salary is sufficient, I recall reading that they all started claiming expenses (or fiddling expenses if you prefer) becuase they had been denied a pay rise (under Thatcher) and the expenses were seen as a back door pay rise. So, lets make sure anyone fiddling expenses is fired, you would be in a normal business environment (or prosecuted for fraud) and set the salary necessary to attract the "right calibre" of person. I dont go with this "they could get more in private enterprise or abroad" rubbish, if they can, then let them, as we would all have to do if we put that to our bosses when negotiating a pay rise.
Now, what that salary would need to be is debatable and my local MP suggested some while back that we dont need as many MPs as we currently have, much of their work is now done by the EU, so thin out some numbers, spread the saved salary around a bit and have performance reviews much as we do in public and private employment. Poor performance means no rise, exceptional performance means you keep your job (until the next review - 12month periods would be good), no swapping ministerial posts mid-term (unless they were useless, then they'd be back to being back benchers) and get a few quid extra for the extra effort shown. I'd make General Elections a fixed date every 5 years, no more of this calling it when it favours one party (usually the one in power), I'd have no Budgets devised to fool the electorate by giving money/allowances back etc. and bring the whole of the Parliamentary process in line with the real world instead of the cosy gentlemens club it is now.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Now, what that salary would need to be is debatable and my local MP suggested some while back that we dont need as many MPs as we currently have, much of their work is now done by the EU, so thin out some numbers, spread the saved salary around a bit and have performance reviews much as we do in public and private employment. Poor performance means no rise, exceptional performance means you keep your job (until the next review - 12month periods would be good), no swapping ministerial posts mid-term (unless they were useless, then they'd be back to being back benchers) and get a few quid extra for the extra effort shown. I'd make General Elections a fixed date every 5 years, no more of this calling it when it favours one party (usually the one in power), I'd have no Budgets devised to fool the electorate by giving money/allowances back etc. and bring the whole of the Parliamentary process in line with the real world instead of the cosy gentlemens club it is now.

The job of an MP is to represent members of their constituency in parliament. How much of that is done by the EU? I'm not in principle against a reduction in the number of MPs, although the increase in numbers has largely been a function of the increase in the population of the UK.

A sitting MP is answerable to their electorate at a general election. That is their performance review. It is a matter for the electorate who represents them and a fundamental of the process of democracy, not for someone civil servant doing a "review" that decides that they don't like the way a particular MP does her (or his) job. So a no from me for parliament giving itself or those it appoints the power to remove MPs mid-term.

One other thing, General Elections are on fixed terms (barring a no confidence motion being carried). Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, introduced by the coalition.

 

[cambsno]

A sitting MP is answerable to their electorate at a general election. That is their performance review. It is a matter for the electorate who represents them and a fundamental of the process of democracy, not for someone civil servant doing a "review" that decides that they don't like the way a particular MP does her (or his) job. So a no from me for parliament giving itself or those it appoints the power to remove MPs mid-term.

Agree to a point, we do have power to decide if they stay or go, although for safe areas (up north for labour and south for conservative traditionally) they would probably retain power regardless of what they do, and dont people often vote for the party first then the person?

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Paying more is no guarantee of getting better quality, the private sector (particularly banking) has seen its fair share of inept, highly paid CEO's who have brought their companies to the brink of disaster and the public in general to misery.
We can only imagine the effect that an MP's pay-rise will have on the unions etc when the average Joe has seen his wage stagnate or reduce ... even if he still has his job :shrug:

I couldn't agree more except it won't take much imagination.

11% pay rise?

The folk on this pay committee are living in cloud cuckoo land!

 

[MWHCVT]

As I understand it all of the leaders are vocally against this pay rise, the question is or should be if they are all in agreement that is shouldn't happen surely they must or should have the power to veto the rise and freeze pay...personally I do think there needs to be reform of the entire system but alas that would be a thread not for this forum as it would only end in one almighty argument even on here let alone in the House of Parliament

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I couldn't agree more except it won't take much imagination.

11% pay rise?

The folk on this pay committee are living in cloud cuckoo land!

As always the headlines deceive....

What isn't mentioned is the withdrawal of some expenses, which the salary increase is in some part meant to address.

 

[cambsno]

Paying more is no guarantee of getting better quality, the private sector (particularly banking) has seen its fair share of inept, highly paid CEO's who have brought their companies to the brink of disaster and the public in general to misery.
We can only imagine the effect that an MP's pay-rise will have on the unions etc when the average Joe has seen his wage stagnate or reduce ... even if he still has his job :shrug:

Generally the more you pay the better the quality - be it people, cars, cameras, homes! No guarantees certainly, but you only need to look at this forum... a £2k tog will probably be better than a £350 one!

Remember, pay peanuts - get monkeys!

 

[gramps]

Remember, pay peanuts - get monkeys!

There are an awful lot of monkeys out there on high salaries!

 

[cambsno]

There are an awful lot of monkeys out there on high salaries!

And there are even more monkeys on peanuts!

 

[BRASH]

As always the headlines deceive....

What isn't mentioned is the withdrawal of some expenses, which the salary increase is in some part meant to address.

Some us have lost expenses over the years and are still held to lower than inflation pay rises, if any. Myself, I'm about 500 sheets a month worse of than I was a few years ago because of this erosion. MP's are a disgrace and a law unto themselves. Very few actually give a toss...............................sod it I'm not gonna bother continuing on a rant. Suffice to say I personally have no faith in any of em.

 

[gramps]

And there are even more monkeys on peanuts!

and generally, as a result, they cannot do too much damage ... it's when they get into over-paid positions that they are not fit for that the damage occurs - seen it in banking, in the NHS, the police, the press etc, etc.

 

[mex]

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER ....no we are not,some of us are in it,whilst others seem immune to it. An 11% pay rise when millions have taken a pay cut for the last 5years or so in real terms makes me want to vomit. IMHO it just displays how out of touch MP's actually are.
The position of member of parliament used to be taken up by an honest person who was there to serve the people,now its an old boys club to fleece the people.

 

[jakeblu]

As always the headlines deceive....

What isn't mentioned is the withdrawal of some expenses, which the salary increase is in some part meant to address.

It didn't deceive me, and most I fancy, all the articles I read reporting this mentioned the cut in some expenses.

Personally I think its a scandal that parliament who are reducing the income of every public worker, people on benefits and the disabled feel its ok for them to consider increasing their salary by double digits. I understand that the increase equates approx £7500 a year thats more money then many have to live on. Interestingly on the day this story broke there was another stating that the majority of families below the poverty line are actually in work!

There may be an argument to be made that MPs deserve higher salaries but now is not the time. In times of austerity & a reduction in public spending (with more to come) and the fact that the vast majority of people are suffering a cut in their standard of living then an 11% rise in salary for MPs should be treated with contempt it and they deserve for even considering it.

Steve

 

[srichards]

Benefit rises are capped at 1% for the next few years. MPs salaries' should be capped the same. This is the minimum they should do without enduring the complete contempt of everyone.

 

[bindex]

Benefit rises are capped at 1% for the next few years. MPs salaries' should be capped the same. This is the minimum they should do without enduring the complete contempt of everyone.

Absolutely agree!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

So our government has not been controlling our countries household income for decades, and let the banking system monopolise our economy.

And they want what?

They need waking up to the thought that we could get rid of them all that's for sure.

It didn't deceive me, and most I fancy, all the articles I read reporting this mentioned the cut in some expenses.

Personally I think its a scandal that parliament who are reducing the income of every public worker, people on benefits and the disabled feel its ok for them to consider increasing their salary by double digits. I understand that the increase equates approx £7500 a year thats more money then many have to live on. Interestingly on the day this story broke there was another stating that the majority of families below the poverty line are actually in work!

There may be an argument to be made that MPs deserve higher salaries but now is not the time. In times of austerity & a reduction in public spending (with more to come) and the fact that the vast majority of people are suffering a cut in their standard of living then an 11% rise in salary for MPs should be treated with contempt it and they deserve for even considering it.

Steve

Seconded!

 

[Tringa]

One of the reasons I've heard for this increase is to make sure those who have been very successful in their own career are not put off from entering politics because they would be taking a cut in income.

The current salary places MPs in the top 5% of earners, so 95% of the earning population could stand for election without risking a financial loss.

It appears this recommended pay increase is part of a package that includes abolition/reduction in some allowances and changes to their pension. I don't understand if it was considered necessary to make changes, why MPs should get and increase in salary to offset such changes. There are quite a few in other workers who have had their pension arrangements altered without any compensation.

I accept that the working hours of MPs are, at times ridiculous. However, no one, whether standing for election or not, thinks being and MP is a 9-5 job. It is, however, a job that provides quite a level of broader influence, allows the job holder to have as many other jobs as he/she wants, and does not require the attendance at the House.

And all of this ignores the fact that almost every other public servant has had very modest (ie below inflation) increases in wages, if they are getting an increase at all.

Dave

 

[ACW]

Who here would honestly turn down a 11% pay rise?

For the responsibilities they have, and amount of stick they get, they are underpaid.

Most of their class mates are probably on a ten times higher salary.

As I understand it all of the leaders are vocally against this pay rise, the question is or should be if they are all in agreement that is shouldn't happen surely they must or should have the power to veto the rise and freeze pay...personally I do think there needs to be reform of the entire system but alas that would be a thread not for this forum as it would only end in one almighty argument even on here let alone in the House of Parliament

They are only vocally against it because they know it has no bearing on the outcome of the report. There is no point them saying they welcome it, as the rise will happen regardless.

IIRC on the radio there was another poll done confidentially in Parliament and the vast majority welcomed the rises.

 

[Steep]

Anyone with a job has seen a substantial drop in 'real' wages over the last few years, MPs included. That said if I'm not getting a decent pay rise because the economy is down then why should my MP? (who happens to be the ginger minger). I think Adam above has it just about right, "11%?? shocking, shocking! erm you do have my bank details yes?" As for expenses, if MPs could be trusted to make honest claims there would be no need to remove the expenses.

 

[specialman]

Doesn't it work out at something like 10p per UK tax payer to cover the increase?

 

[RedRobin]

So what!

No matter how much you earn or get paid there will always be some who receive more. And also there will always be those who receive less.

 

[srichards]

This is the same week that IDS was bleating that there were 50 odd families that received £70k each in benefits. Failing to notice irony that 600+ MPs receive that amount and don't necessarily spend much less time sat on their backsides

 

[u8myufo]

this will last long..

It should if nobody get` called gay I wonder what planet some people are on coming out with comments like they deserve more and the responsibilities they have. What responsibilies are those then? A Pm is a scapegoat that`s part of the job, they hardly run the country, that goes to all the advisers to hand. If they are that much in control of the country I suggest they start listening to what some of the old folk have to say and act on it. Never heard so much Crap!

 

[cowboy]

We vote them in so technically we employ them so should we, the voter, have a say in their wage increase?

All they appear to do is tell us what we want to hear so they will get elected and then forgot what that was and toe the party line, make barnyard noises at each other, have long holidays and then retire on a good pension while getting paid a consultancy fee for letting some company or other have a large contract.

Oh and occasionally try to run the country if they can fit that in

 

[big soft moose]

For the responsibilities they have, and amount of stick they get, they are underpaid.

.

really , and what onerous responsibilities does a standard MP have ?

 

[onomatopoeia]

We vote them in so technically we employ them so should we, the voter, have a say in their wage increase?

Until parliament changed the rules, technically we did. They voted on their own pay increase and we vote to elect who gets to vote. So we elected the people that decided what MPs get paid and we could vote for someone else if we didn't agree on how they voted on MPs' pay.

Since MPs choosing their own salary was deemed by the public to be a Very Bad Thing which caused much gnashing of teeth, they decided that their pay should be set by an independent body that was not answerable to parliament. So we now have an independent body setting MPs' wages which MPs can't overrule. Everyone should be happy with that, right? Wrong. People are only happy with it if the independent body announces a pay settlement which agrees with their own viewpoint on what MPs should be paid.

In other words, people are never happy, even when they get what they think they want. This should not surprise anyone, it certainly doesn't surprise me. I despair of people.

And since anyone that ever puts forward an unpopular view that goes contrary to the baying mob always gets asked if they have a vested interest, no, I'm not an MP, no-one in my familiy is an MP, I don't know any MPs, I have no involvement in politics and I my life is in no way affectedby the size of pay increase that MPs are awarded.

really , and what onerous responsibilities does a standard MP have ?

They have to deal with tens of thousands of constituents. I find it difficult to imagine anything more onerous than strangers feeling they have a right to your time and the press believing your life holds "legitimate public interest". I doubt I'd last six months. I've never been suicidal but I can quite easily imagine jumping off a bridge after a few weeks of that, no matter how well paid it is.

 

[ACW]

really , and what onerous responsibilities does a standard MP have ?

Before or after the plethora of issues that they have to deal with just at a constituency level?

Each represents 92k (averaging) people. Lets say 0.5% of the population have some sort of grievance that requires an MPs help, straight away that's 460 issues. I'm probably underestimating how many people require such help.

Every now and then one of these issues will require some form of policy change, when this happens, to say it's time consuming does not even begin to cover it.

Combine that with various lobbying, attending parliament for non-constituency matters etc.

Although only one of a large group, each MP still plays their part in the enactment of major legislation.

If you genuinely think MPs sit around all day drinking tea and eating biscuits perhaps you should pay closer attention to how our parliamentary system works rather than citing what sounds like mainstream MP bashing drivel.

It would take one day shadowing an MP to change your mind.

 

[ACW]

They have to deal with tens of thousands of constituents. I find it difficult to imagine anything more onerous than strangers feeling they have a right to your time and the press believing your life holds "legitimate public interest". I doubt I'd last six months. I've never been suicidal but I can quite easily imagine jumping off a bridge after a few weeks of that, no matter how well paid it is.

Typing at the same time!

Agree with your points.

 

[Nikon Man]

They preach pay rises for performance yet fall short in every instance themselves. Liars everyone of them, no wonder they are trying to shut the media up...getting caught with your fingers in the till must be tiresome for them.

 

[ACW]

They preach pay rises for performance yet fall short in every instance themselves. Liars everyone of them, no wonder they are trying to shut the media up...getting caught with your fingers in the till must be tiresome for them.

Massive sweeping generalisations teamed with an undertone of the classic, eau de 'red top.'

 

[cambsno]

We vote them in so technically we employ them so should we, the voter, have a say in their wage increase?

All they appear to do is tell us what we want to hear so they will get elected and then forgot what that was and toe the party line, make barnyard noises at each other, have long holidays and then retire on a good pension while getting paid a consultancy fee for letting some company or other have a large contract.

Oh and occasionally try to run the country if they can fit that in

Doesn't stop teachers wanting a rise

 

[cambsno]

Until parliament changed the rules, technically we did. They voted on their own pay increase and we vote to elect who gets to vote. So we elected the people that decided what MPs get paid and we could vote for someone else if we didn't agree on how they voted on MPs' pay.

Since MPs choosing their own salary was deemed by the public to be a Very Bad Thing which caused much gnashing of teeth, they decided that their pay should be set by an independent body that was not answerable to parliament. So we now have an independent body setting MPs' wages which MPs can't overrule. Everyone should be happy with that, right? Wrong. People are only happy with it if the independent body announces a pay settlement which agrees with their own viewpoint on what MPs should be paid.

In other words, people are never happy, even when they get what they think they want. This should not surprise anyone, it certainly doesn't surprise me. I despair of people.

And since anyone that ever puts forward an unpopular view that goes contrary to the baying mob always gets asked if they have a vested interest, no, I'm not an MP, no-one in my familiy is an MP, I don't know any MPs, I have no involvement in politics and I my life is in no way affectedby the size of pay increase that MPs are awarded.


They have to deal with tens of thousands of constituents. I find it difficult to imagine anything more onerous than strangers feeling they have a right to your time and the press believing your life holds "legitimate public interest". I doubt I'd last six months. I've never been suicidal but I can quite easily imagine jumping off a bridge after a few weeks of that, no matter how well paid it is.

Before or after the plethora of issues that they have to deal with just at a constituency level?

Each represents 92k (averaging) people. Lets say 0.5% of the population have some sort of grievance that requires an MPs help, straight away that's 460 issues. I'm probably underestimating how many people require such help.

Every now and then one of these issues will require some form of policy change, when this happens, to say it's time consuming does not even begin to cover it.

Combine that with various lobbying, attending parliament for non-constituency matters etc.

Although only one of a large group, each MP still plays their part in the enactment of major legislation.

If you genuinely think MPs sit around all day drinking tea and eating biscuits perhaps you should pay closer attention to how our parliamentary system works rather than citing what sounds like mainstream MP bashing drivel.

It would take one day shadowing an MP to change your mind.

Agree totally with all of this.