Pay rise for MPs

Tringa

Tringa

Numpty of the Day'
Messages
5,836
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33003782

This is an article about the current fall out at Westminster on the proposal by the independent body (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, IPSA) for MPs salaries to be increased by £7,000/year.


The article includes this from Marcial Boo, IPSA's chief executive -

"Clearly everybody is entitled to their view, but overall MPs are not going to be benefiting any more than they were before because the adjustment to their salary is compensated for by the cuts to their pension and the allowances."


MPs pensions and allowances were cut because it was decided (by IPSA) they were too generous - http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/pages/default.aspx - so why are the salaries being increased?

The last link includes - "As a whole, this package of reform would not cost the taxpayer a penny more". As the benefits for MPs were considered to be too generous shouldn't the package save the taxpayers money?


Think I have lost the plot.


Dave
 
Meanwhile there must be cuts made to the NHS incl pay for agency staff.
 
I think there are two aspects this...

Firstly, if it was decided to have an independent body to determine salaries and remuneration then surely one has to accept it's findings.

However, I think the question is; how was the 10% increase deemed appropriate, arrived at? Yes, maybe the overall cost is mitigated to a point of financial neutrality by changes to pensions and expenses, but as the OP has noted, expenses were deemed as over generous, so the overall effect should be a reduction perhaps?

Anthony
 
omens said:
Meanwhile there must be cuts made to the NHS incl pay for agency staff.
Click to expand...

I do like it when people compare peanuts with elephants!

Love 'em or hate 'em they are, by popular vote, the best 600 politicians in the country. Look at pretty much any other profession (footballers, pop-stars, lawyers, doctors, managers) and I think you will see that the top 600 are paid far more than MPs .

If you want to earn that kind of money, stand for election!
 
Legalised corruption. Makes me sick:rolleyes:
 
The salary is assessed by comparing like for like with the market. As there aren't any private sector MPs this is clearly a bit difficult but they look around and find something that looks like a fit, so they are 10% underpaid according to the market. The whole of the civil service and related bodies are also being hit by changes to pensions so that doesn't really hold much water as far as MPs are concerned, and they have a fantastic pension agreement anyway. My opinion is that they should have their 10% as long as the rest of us get 10% as well. Yes I am one of those working in a government pay scheme related body, but not the Civil Service, but I think everybody should get 10%. Incidentally senior people in the place I work get market related salaries so it's nothing new.
 
If we want MP's that aren't numpties, then we need salaries that attract the right people.

Moaning about salaries is fair enough (i agree), but we have such a weak bunch of loosers because there's no incentive (financial) to attract the right people.

yes they get paid a lot, but theres plenty of people out there getting paid an awful lot more.

Pay peanuts.........

Al
 
ST4 said:
There are as many tory seats in Scotland as there are labour.

I aim to double this tally to two. Scotland will become blue again.
Click to expand...

Aye right!
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Aye right!
Click to expand...

Or purple. We will get to blue first. Lets get the reds in and yellows out, then mix the red and blues to get purples :D

Scotland shall not be taken by the left.

Red Tories, Blue Tories, Purple tories. Just lots of Tories. Although right now the tory party is a bit Blu Labour in its approach to the EU etc.
 
Our MP's have traditionally been allowed (and even encouraged) to have another source of income. This has always been part of the 'culture' of being an MP when the role was seen as being appropriate for a member of the aristocracy or retired captain of industry.

That's one reason the pay is so 'low' I believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31645242
 
This PDF (page 11) shows the progression of MP's pay over the years.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/fymp/m05.pdf

In 1975 the average wage in the UK was £2291, and the MP's wage £5750. In 2014 the average wage was £25028, and the MP's wage £65K approx.

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/result2.php

What those who support MP's pay seem to forget about, is the huge range of expenses and other "earning methods", which MP's can use to supplement their salary.
 
Cartus said:
Our MP's have traditionally been allowed (and even encouraged) to have another source of income. This has always been part of the 'culture' of being an MP when the role was seen as being appropriate for a member of the aristocracy or retired captain of industry.

That's one reason the pay is so 'low' I believe.
Click to expand...

I would like to see MPs salaries increase but with a ban on taking any other paid employment and very strict rules on expenses.


Steve.
 
I would do it and put the effort in for the money on offer even after the increase. The good ones are severely underpaid in my opinion and much more so than what ipsa came out with.

However the timing is not great, but I guess it never is.
 
Whether you agree with Cameron (or whoever has or will be in No.10), he is only paid £142k... when you think that he runs the country that is a paltry amount, when other civil servants will earn more. Sure, he will make millions with his memoirs, and gets great benefits (bet he could get tickets to anything!) but it does seem a pretty low amount. I also think MPs are underpaid. Its easy to throw mud at them, and sure they get to make that up by being in cabinet etc... and they also benefit from some rather nice allowances, but £67k to have a say in running the country also seems a bit low. Would be interested to see what other countries pay for similar roles. Remember, that while they do the odd naughty thing, they are much more honest than most other countries and while a few went too far with expenses many were just making the most of any loopholes within the rules.
 
andy700 said:
This PDF (page 11) shows the progression of MP's pay over the years.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/fymp/m05.pdf

In 1975 the average wage in the UK was £2291, and the MP's wage £5750. In 2014 the average wage was £25028, and the MP's wage £65K approx.

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/result2.php

What those who support MP's pay seem to forget about, is the huge range of expenses and other "earning methods", which MP's can use to supplement their salary.
Click to expand...

Anyone is free to employ other earning methods to supplement their income.
 
viv1969 said:
Anyone is free to employ other earning methods to supplement their income.
Click to expand...


Oh dear, are you back trolling again?
I would have thought that an MP's job was FULL TIME (sorry to raise my voice), because they are looking after tens of thousands of constituents, so that should not leave ANY time left over for "feathering their nest".
As the expenses scandal showed, most of them are earning far in excess of their "basic" salary of around £67K a year, so they are just greedy barstewards.
 
"If we want MP's that aren't numpties, then we need salaries that attract the right people."

Well MPs have well above average payments now - and just look at the types such pay has attracted. I think a significant pay cut might actually improve the service we get. The recent sets of politicians who claim they are representing the general population do not seem to apply the rule of 'rubbish pay, so low quality staff' to all the population who have had pay cuts or total freezes, indeed the politicians state everyone is more efficient and productive. So by their own beliefs, a pay CUT would improve the quality of political service.

Also of course there have been some very good politicians in the past who came from working class backgrounds, who would have seen a politicians level of pay as a fortune in comparison to what they had earned in their day to day jobs. Its still a fortune to the average voter.

If politicians are so very hard done by, there is nothing to stop them leaving politics and earning bigger salaries elsewhere - but so very few do - so I can only assume that the perks and pensions and power more than make up any deficit for them, even prior to this latest and obscene pay recommendation (given the population are now resorting to food banks, disabled people are left destitute, vast numbers of people unable to buy homes etc).
 
MidnightUK said:
"If we want MP's that aren't numpties, then we need salaries that attract the right people."

Well MPs have well above average payments now - and just look at the types such pay has attracted. I think a significant pay cut might actually improve the service we get. The recent sets of politicians who claim they are representing the general population do not seem to apply the rule of 'rubbish pay, so low quality staff' to all the population who have had pay cuts or total freezes, indeed the politicians state everyone is more efficient and productive. So by their own beliefs, a pay CUT would improve the quality of political service.

Also of course there have been some very good politicians in the past who came from working class backgrounds, who would have seen a politicians level of pay as a fortune in comparison to what they had earned in their day to day jobs. Its still a fortune to the average voter.

If politicians are so very hard done by, there is nothing to stop them leaving politics and earning bigger salaries elsewhere - but so very few do - so I can only assume that the perks and pensions and power more than make up any deficit for them, even prior to this latest and obscene pay recommendation (given the population are now resorting to food banks, disabled people are left destitute, vast numbers of people unable to buy homes etc).
Click to expand...
That is one theory, or perhaps for a few of them they have salaries now that they could never dream of obtaining in the private sector due to plain lack of capability. Sure it is above average earning, yet it is also way below (and in my opinion more than 10% below) of what they should be getting. Heck most of the civil servants they are facing off with are earning more than they do...That is just ridiculous.
 
andy700 said:
Oh dear, are you back trolling again?
I would have thought that an MP's job was FULL TIME (sorry to raise my voice), because they are looking after tens of thousands of constituents, so that should not leave ANY time left over for "feathering their nest".
As the expenses scandal showed, most of them are earning far in excess of their "basic" salary of around £67K a year, so they are just greedy barstewards.
Click to expand...
Hmm pot kettle ...Nice grown up discussion...
 
andy700 said:
Oh dear, are you back trolling again?
I would have thought that an MP's job was FULL TIME (sorry to raise my voice), because they are looking after tens of thousands of constituents, so that should not leave ANY time left over for "feathering their nest".
As the expenses scandal showed, most of them are earning far in excess of their "basic" salary of around £67K a year, so they are just greedy barstewards.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I stated is fact.
They are free to top up their incomes just as you or I are.
Your comical outrage doesn't make it less true.

If that's trolling, perhaps you should invest some of yours in a new dictionary.

Now, why don't you climb down iff that high horse of yours and look at the world from the same perspective as everyone else?
 
andy700 said:
Oh dear, are you back trolling again?
I would have thought that an MP's job was FULL TIME (sorry to raise my voice), because they are looking after tens of thousands of constituents, so that should not leave ANY time left over for "feathering their nest".
As the expenses scandal showed, most of them are earning far in excess of their "basic" salary of around £67K a year, so they are just greedy barstewards.
Click to expand...
MP's will justify second jobs (sometimes quite rightly) by claiming that the electorate are only interested in MP's who have some 'experience of life' and not just 'career politicians'. Therefore the role is pre-disposed to allowing additional employment in the way other jobs often aren't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31587588
 
seventythree said:
If we want MP's that aren't numpties, then we need salaries that attract the right people.

Al
Click to expand...

Yes, just like a fortune was/is paid to bankers to get the right people ................. that worked out well !
 
It’s not just their salary that’s the problem it’s the amount of expenses that they claim in the last published results 2013/14 the total expenses claimed by MP’s excluding salary was £103,629,411.27 which equates to £159,430 per MP, I think there is some fat to be trimmed there, and that’s just at Westminster. I would hate to think what the total bill for the smooth and efficient running of the country is when you include the European, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh parliaments and all the councils. The thing that I have noticed over the last number of years is that everything has had to streamline and become more efficient except in politics, 50 years ago 630 MP’s were what was needed to run the country now it’s 847 and that doesn’t include MEP’s.
 
Last edited:
Talk about
cambsno said:
Whether you agree with Cameron (or whoever has or will be in No.10), he is only paid £142k... when you think that he runs the country that is a paltry amount, when other civil servants will earn more. Sure, he will make millions with his memoirs, and gets great benefits (bet he could get tickets to anything!) but it does seem a pretty low amount. I also think MPs are underpaid. Its easy to throw mud at them, and sure they get to make that up by being in cabinet etc... and they also benefit from some rather nice allowances, but £67k to have a say in running the country also seems a bit low. Would be interested to see what other countries pay for similar roles. Remember, that while they do the odd naughty thing, they are much more honest than most other countries and while a few went too far with expenses many were just making the most of any loopholes within the rules.
Click to expand...

Look at the salaries of most Local Authority leaders which are far in excess of the PM and MPs without anywhere near the responsibility , also Headmasters and GPs to name but a few who are on the gravy train. As said compared to other countries we get a bargain. Someone moaned about cutting the NHS Agency budget - it might just make the NHS managers realise that they have to do their jobs and plan and employ real staff rather than the fantastically over paid agency staff and the agencies running them. We shouldn't to employ agency staff if the NHS was run properly.
 
tarric said:
It’s not just their salary that’s the problem it’s the amount of expenses that they claim in the last published results 2013/14 the total expenses claimed by MP’s excluding salary was £103,629,411.27 which equates to £159,430 per MP, I think there is some fat to be trimmed there, and that’s just at Westminster. I would hate to think what the total bill for the smooth and efficient running of the country is when you include the European, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh parliaments and all the councils. The thing that I have noticed over the last number of years is that everything has had to streamline and become more efficient except in politics, 50 years ago 630 MP’s were what was needed to run the country now it’s 847 and that doesn’t include MEP’s.
Click to expand...

The current number of MP's is actually about 650.
The House of Lords has 790 members plus about another 40 who are on leave of absence or disqualified from sitting (not actually enough seats in the chamber for that lot) making it the second largest parliamentary chamber in the world. Only China has a larger chamber.

An anachronism of staggering magnitude.
 
arclight said:
The current number of MP's is actually about 650.
The House of Lords has 790 members plus about another 40 who are on leave of absence or disqualified from sitting (not actually enough seats in the chamber for that lot) making it the second largest parliamentary chamber in the world. Only China has a larger chamber.

An anachronism of staggering magnitude.
Click to expand...

Yes there are 650 MP's, but there is also 129 MSP's, 108 Members of the Northern Irish Assembly, 60 in the Welsh Assembly and 73 MEP’s.
 
tarric said:
Yes there are 650 MP's, but there is also 129 MSP's, 108 Members of the Northern Irish Assembly, 60 in the Welsh Assembly and 73 MEP’s.
Click to expand...

Plus the Scottish parliament and millions of councillors. The UK is grossly over governed.
 
If the MP's deserve their pay rise as they are underpaid for the job they do, are then nurses, firemen, police officers and teachers fairly paid ? or is the offer of <1% reflective of their duties, after all they are either saving,protecting or educating us as opposed to milking us like the asreholes that turn up now and again at Westminster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top