MPs Pay Rise

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.

not really - the "dealing with the 460 issues" is mostly done by admin assistants , they run maybe one constituency surgery per week, they do the occasional bit of opening school fetes etc , they attend parliament where they sit on their arse and ocassionally vote (watch a late night debate sometime and see how sparsely attended it is) except of course in the huge summer break - plus they do a bit of campaigning every four years in which they tell various lies in the hope of getting reelected

its in no way onerous and certainly doesn't carry the sort of executive responsibility that would command 75k in the private or even third sector. In fact I'm fairly sure it carries less responsibility than the job I do for £25k, so no I don't think they deserve an 11% pay rise - imo they should take a pay freeze or cut like the rest of the public sector... after all they keep telling us that "we're all in it together"

In order to shadow my MP I'd first have to find him - that would likely be a matter of canvassing the various local golf courses and restaurants, unless of course its a London day in which case he'd probably be on the 9 train from Exeter and back by 5 unless he was staying overnight at tax payer expense.
 
Massive sweeping generalisations teamed with an undertone of the classic, eau de 'red top.'
Exactly... I would be kidding myself thinking any other way. Thanks for the French lesson.
 
not really - the "dealing with the 460 issues" is mostly done by admin assistants , they run maybe one constituency surgery per week, they do the occasional bit of opening school fetes etc , they attend parliament where they sit on their arse and ocassionally vote (watch a late night debate sometime and see how sparsely attended it is) except of course in the huge summer break - plus they do a bit of campaigning every four years in which they tell various lies in the hope of getting reelected

its in no way onerous and certainly doesn't carry the sort of executive responsibility that would command 75k in the private or even third sector. In fact I'm fairly sure it carries less responsibility than the job I do for £25k, so no I don't think they deserve an 11% pay rise - imo they should take a pay freeze or cut like the rest of the public sector... after all they keep telling us that "we're all in it together"

In order to shadow my MP I'd first have to find him - that would likely be a matter of canvassing the various local golf courses and restaurants, unless of course its a London day in which case he'd probably be on the 9 train from Exeter and back by 5 unless he was staying overnight at tax payer expense.

In no particular order-

Prejudice 1: Your 'day in the life of an MP' gambit is pure fabrication.

Prejudice 2: A huge amount of workers in almost every single sector spend most of the day 'sat on their arse' while carrying out the tasks that make up their job. Why does an MP sitting down mean they are not working?

Prejudice 3: Not all MPs like golf.

Prejudice 4: Not all debates are relevant to MPs. If I'm an MP for a Midlands landlocked constituency why am I going to attend a debate on whether fishing on the South Coast should require a certain type of licence?

Prejudice 5: Although it's not always their job on the line, MPs are involved with more than one type of election every four years...

As for your career, I don't wish to make this discussion that personal. I'd argue coal mining and working on an oil rig is far more onerous than being an MP. Whilst I have a huge amount of respect for either of these jobs, it doesn't mean I'd want them (the miner / rigger) representing me in Parliament.


Exactly... I would be kidding myself thinking any other way. Thanks for the French lesson.

I was only pointing out that nothing in your previous comment was true. They were partial truths that were hugely exaggerated out of all recognition.
 
Last edited:
...it doesn't mean I'd want them (the miner / rigger) representing me in Parliament.

Why not... are they not good enough to represent you?

Just for one, Dennis Skinner is an ex-miner and a shining example of what an MP should be like (irrespective of his political party) He is absolutely genuine, unlike many of the career politicians we currently have. And what about Aneurin Bevan, yet another ex-miner and widely regarded as the Father of the NHS, wasn't he good enough?
 
Last edited:
Why not... are they not good enough to represent you?

Just for one, Dennis Skinner is an ex-miner and a shining example of what an MP should be like (irrespective of his political party) He is absolutely genuine, unlike many of the career politicians we currently have. And what about Aneurin Bevan, yet another ex-miner and widely regarded as the Father of the NHS, wasn't he good enough?


They are two excellent examples of people who have "real life" experience, and can thus empathise with the MAJORITY of people.
If we now take the examples of the two most powerful politicians in the UK - David Cameron and George Osborne - they both come from incredibly rich backgrounds (they are already "minted" for life), educated at the same establishments, and their only "jobs" prior to becoming MP's were as "political researchers".
By complete contrast, if we look at Alan Johnson, he stacked shelves at Tesco, then worked as a postman, despite having a grammar school education. Vince Cable was a lecturer in economics.
IF, the 11% pay rise is accepted (after making false denials) then it will be disgraceful IMO. We are not talking about people who have to survive on around £75K a year, but people who can claim that and much more, for second properties, travelling, council tax, mortgage relief, and pretty much anything that ordinary folks have to fund out of their salary.
 
You only have one headteacher per school, so that is a very low percentage of teachers getting paid that amount. There are also many headteachers getting paid less than £75K.

http://www.naht.org.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=31801

I got the nuance theres only one per school but theres also many schools in most constituencies..........in absence of anything but the scales, it seems a reasonable assumption that the average HT is around the average on the scale......around £75k. Anyway its OT, it was only a simple response to an earlier statement
 
I reckon everyone's right and wrong to some degree on this thread.... I don't think Its the percentage that's important in these times of austerity anyway, in-fact its spin for the rest of the world to see maybe, as will hopefully be the example of Leadership when its refused
 
Last edited:
In fairness, most headtheachers are on that - their salary scale goes well past £100k
There are nearly 500,000 teachers in the state system with the average salary (inc head teachers) of £37000. There are some head teachers that earn over 100,000 but the salary of teachers over the last 3 years has fallen.

Steve
 
Back
Top