FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > MP's proposed 10% pay rise - does it seem fair?

MP's proposed 10% pay rise - does it seem fair?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said there appeared to be no "material" reason to alter its proposal, first put forward in 2013. Unless "new evidence" emerged, MPs' pay will rise from £67,060 to £74,000.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa.

Ipsa was handed control of decisions over MPs' pay and expenses in wake of the 2009 expenses scandal. It does not need to get the agreement of Parliament to bring in the changes. Unless "new and compelling evidence" emerged by the end of June the pay rise - to be backdated to 8 May - would be confirmed.

Ipsa said that due to cuts in pensions and expenses - such as a ban on claiming for evening meals - the overall package of changes would not cost taxpayers "a penny more".

It does seem a massive increase when many people, especially in the public sector, are receiving increases far below inflation or no rise at all. I am unconvinced as well, that it will not cost taxpayers ! a penny more"!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

I would raise the salary higher and cut the expenses.

It is ridiculous that the prime minister earns less than senior managers in most companies, and not CEO's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think even after the raise they are still underpaid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

what do you expect from white collered gangsters..? they aint gonna work for minimum wage are they..? these people are not much different than the mafia familys and cartels world over..they are in the political game to make money for themselves..this pay rise wont be the last either..and they will make new laws also that will inable them to once again fiddle there expenses and therefore make more money for them selves..these people are above the laws which they make..and get away fucking murder..they have been doing it for centurys..and there is nowt we can do about it..lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would raise the salary higher and cut the expenses.

It is ridiculous that the prime minister earns less than senior managers in most companies, and not CEO's"

Completely agree. The expenses system is complex and open to abuse, I'm sure there's savings to be made just by increasing the basic pay instead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"I think even after the raise they are still underpaid."

You can tell that by the standard of those who seek the job.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

even raising there salary to a million pound a years still wouldn't stop these people from fiddling the expenses..i think it would be quite the opposite..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No!

There are people going hungry in this country.

Benefits being cut.

Feck that.

They do fine with what they are paid.

If they don't like it, try the REAL WORLD.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

"No!

There are people going hungry in this country.

Benefits being cut.

Feck that.

They do fine with what they are paid.

If they don't like it, try the REAL WORLD.

As Dr's Lawyers Economists Lecturers, they would earn more in the real world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ourbonKissMan over a year ago

a land up north..... of leicester

By my reckoning thats an extra £560k a year, surely that cash would be better else where such as supporting some sort of work place training scheme.

An old neighbour of mine used to be involved in one and would given anything for £50k guaranteed cash each year. He could help on average 100 young peeps get into sustainable work a year with that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No!

There are people going hungry in this country.

Benefits being cut.

Feck that.

They do fine with what they are paid.

If they don't like it, try the REAL WORLD.

As Dr's Lawyers Economists Lecturers, they would earn more in the real world"

Have at it then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I would raise the salary higher and cut the expenses.

It is ridiculous that the prime minister earns less than senior managers in most companies, and not CEO's

Completely agree. The expenses system is complex and open to abuse, I'm sure there's savings to be made just by increasing the basic pay instead."

I think a lot of our taxation system needs overhauling. People setting themselves up as a Limited Company and paying themselves dividends thus avoiding tax is one I would close down for starters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By my reckoning thats an extra £560k a year, surely that cash would be better else where such as supporting some sort of work place training scheme.

An old neighbour of mine used to be involved in one and would given anything for £50k guaranteed cash each year. He could help on average 100 young peeps get into sustainable work a year with that"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The head of our local council is on over hundred grand a year lol nearly double the pm lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do we want to attract high quality people to make the decisions on our behalf? If so pay them. If we want to see abuse and poor quality people because most people are turned off at the prospect of earning significantly less than they could elsewhere, maintain the status quo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Do we want to attract high quality people to make the decisions on our behalf? If so pay them. If we want to see abuse and poor quality people because most people are turned off at the prospect of earning significantly less than they could elsewhere, maintain the status quo."

I agree, but many MP's have other sidelines, they don't just do that job. They usually have other means of topping up their salaries.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

What does an MP actually do?

Answer letters? Not many do...what they do is attach a copy of a constituents letter to local government and then attach that reply to their response. I know this cos me and my local government mate did it a couple of years ago. The lazy MP took all the credit and did fuck all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ourbonKissMan over a year ago

a land up north..... of leicester

I agree, but many MP's have other sidelines, they don't just do that job. They usually have other means of topping up their salaries. "

exactly! My mp Mr Bridgen is a multi millionaire for example. I'm sure the salary he earns for being an mp is chump change to him

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Pity the benefits limit has been reduced to £23k though I guess the saving will go in the MP'a pockets. What a result! Take from those who can least afford it, eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agree, but many MP's have other sidelines, they don't just do that job. They usually have other means of topping up their salaries. "

But part of the reason for that IS the low salary, in my _iew.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"What does an MP actually do?

Some of them, spend a lot of time filibustering. They are specialists in it, it would infuriate the hell out of me!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's supposed to be a vocation not a money maker!

If you can't get by on £1200 a week with full expenses... I think politics is not for you!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I agree, but many MP's have other sidelines, they don't just do that job. They usually have other means of topping up their salaries.

But part of the reason for that IS the low salary, in my _iew."

Yes possibly. It's a difficult one isn't it, striking the right balance. Just seems bad timing, at the same time as many others are struggling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

an MP doesn't carry out similar roles within society as those who save lives day in say out and put their own safety before others..

no one forces them to become MP's they can if they wish go off in to other areas and 'earn more'..

given the current financial state 'we' are in and that the same bunch of people have scrapped other independent pay re_iew bodies its poor taste for any of them to accept it..

funny that it was held back till after the election..

it stinks end of..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's nowhere near enough .

I would hate to have to do what they do , and there are so many better paid jobs out there .

If we want the best we have to pay the best .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"It's nowhere near enough .

I would hate to have to do what they do , and there are so many better paid jobs out there .

If we want the best we have to pay the best .

How can you have 'the best' wing a function of how much they get paid? They are elected. Doesn't mean they are 'the best' - means they were most popular. One doesn't need any qualifications or experience to be an MP. Look at the 23 year old who was elected. In what way of experience and knowledge of politics and government, social or public policy etc, is she 'the best'?

It should be for public service not lining their own pockets. If they can't scrape by on £69k pa or whatever - tough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Oh ffs!

when I said 'wing' I meant 'being'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 02/06/15 21:47:04]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *yrdwomanWoman over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Shame they can't pass a bit of it down to the people who support them. I get naff all this year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. "
.

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting"

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. "

On the contrary, an MP doesn't actually produce anything, doesn't need any skills or abilities, no training, no qualifications. Hordes of civil servants and lawyers write the proposed legislation that MPs as a group, want. I think doctors and nurses and firemen and coast guards should get paid a huge amount for saving lives. In my _iew, their jobs are more worthwhile and they deserve more. An MP could indeed get paid more in the private sector. Then they can choose to do that by resigning and we get left with a good waged person who wants to be an MP because of a sense of public duty, not the wage packet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do

anything unless paid is really very

insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who

do it full time. And without paying for

it how would anyone except those with

other sources of wealth be able to do

it? "

Because anyone can live off £69k a

year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

That's incredibly subjective though. There are plenty of people who would suggest MY job doesn't save any lives or produce anything and therefore I don't deserve my salary, but I believe it makes a difference. There are other worthwhile pursuits beyond being the person making the thing or the person wielding the scalpel or hose. I've worked with MPs who have really made a difference in their constituencies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? "
.

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do

anything unless paid is really very

insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who

do it full time. And without paying for

it how would anyone except those with

other sources of wealth be able to do

it?

Because anyone can live off £69k a

year. "

Yes and apparently anyone can live off £7.85 an hour outside London and £9.15 inside London. That doesn't mean it's what everyone SHOULD be paid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? .

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that"

You can't always get it on the cheap either. Of course £65k plus a ridiculous expenses system is a lot. Which is why I think the ridiculous expenses system should be abolished and a salary commensurate with the role and its requirements established instead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What does an MP actually do?

Some of them, spend a lot of time filibustering. They are specialists in it, it would infuriate the hell out of me!"

There are restrictions on how much time they can spend doing it. I was reading something about this last night weirdly enough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

think doctors and nurses and firemen

and coast guards should get paid a

huge amount for saving lives. In my

_iew, their jobs are more worthwhile

and they deserve more. An MP could

indeed get paid more in the private

sector. Then they can choose to do that

by resigning and we get left with a good

waged person who wants to be an MP

because of a sense of public duty, not

the wage packet.

That's incredibly subjective though.

There are plenty of people who would

suggest MY job doesn't save any lives

or produce anything and therefore I

don't deserve my salary, but I believe it

makes a difference. There are other

worthwhile pursuits beyond being the

person making the thing or the person

wielding the scalpel or hose. I've

worked with MPs who have really made

a difference in their constituencies.

I'm discussing MP's wages. My examples of professions (note the difference) and jobs were exactly that, examples. It would be irrelevant to list every possible job and it's worth against that of an MP which is why I used those specific examples.

If an MP can't manage on the current £69k pa they can fuck off and clean sewers or design cathedrals or write violin concertos instead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

That's what makes their salary scale difficult to understand in some ways. It is the same, across the board. Most other professions, you go in at the bottom and work your way up. You get rewarded for good performance, no increase for a poor performance etc. Some MP's are passionate about what they do and go above and beyond. I would happily pay them more. Others, just go about the motions, with little achieved from their time in office.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? .

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that

It's not on the cheap though.

There are millions of people who would love to earn that money!

Jonas Salk earned pretty much the same as a medical researcher, he dedicated 7 years of his life with average pay for it to find a vaccine for polio, without him you could be sat typing in a wheel chair or dead and the world may not have seen the end of the 20th centuries aids!

Not everything in life is about money and it certainly doesn't always buy you the best!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

think doctors and nurses and firemen

and coast guards should get paid a

huge amount for saving lives. In my

_iew, their jobs are more worthwhile

and they deserve more. An MP could

indeed get paid more in the private

sector. Then they can choose to do that

by resigning and we get left with a good

waged person who wants to be an MP

because of a sense of public duty, not

the wage packet.

That's incredibly subjective though.

There are plenty of people who would

suggest MY job doesn't save any lives

or produce anything and therefore I

don't deserve my salary, but I believe it

makes a difference. There are other

worthwhile pursuits beyond being the

person making the thing or the person

wielding the scalpel or hose. I've

worked with MPs who have really made

a difference in their constituencies.

If an MP can't manage on the current £69k pa they can fuck off and clean sewers or design cathedrals or write violin concertos instead. "

And my point is that the same argument could be made about any of the examples of jobs and professions you've decided are the worthwhile ones. YOU'VE decided. Not which ARE the worthwhile as opposed to the non-worthwhile because that is not an objective thing. There is a big difference between being able to manage on and a salary being commensurate for a role. I'm not suggesting MPs "can't get by" on the salary, I'm suggesting that it should be paid differently, via a basic salary rather than the basic plus expenses system.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Can't disagree with that, some appear crap.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? .

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that

It's not on the cheap though.

There are millions of people who would love to earn that money!

Not everything in life is about money and it certainly doesn't always buy you the best!

Good for him! Hardly relevant though.

There are probably many millions of people who would like to earn my salary. Doesn't mean they should or could do my job.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

I thought you only get a pay rise when the company you work for does well, so far they deserve a pay cut.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? .

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that

It's not on the cheap though.

There are millions of people who would love to earn that money!

Not everything in life is about money and it certainly doesn't always buy you the best!

Good for him! Hardly relevant though.

There are probably many millions of people who would like to earn my salary. Doesn't mean they should or could do my job. "
.

Of course it's relevant, you don't need the brains of Britain to do an mps job, what you need is dedication and you can't buy dedication, it brings its own rewards!... That's why it's relevant

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

think doctors and nurses and firemen

and coast guards should get paid a

huge amount for saving lives. In my

_iew, their jobs are more worthwhile

and they deserve more. An MP

could

indeed get paid more in the private

sector. Then they can choose to do that

by resigning and we get left with a good

waged person who wants to be an MP

because of a sense of public duty, not

the wage packet.

That's incredibly subjective though.

There are plenty of people who would

suggest MY job doesn't save any lives

or produce anything and therefore I

don't deserve my salary, but I believe it

makes a difference. There are other

worthwhile pursuits beyond being the

person making the thing or the person

wielding the scalpel or hose. I've

worked with MPs who have really made

a difference in their constituencies.

I'm discussing MP's wages. My examples of professions (note the difference) and jobs were exactly that, examples. It would be irrelevant to list

every possible job and it's worth against

that of an MP which is why I used

those specific examples.

If an MP can't manage on the current

£69k pa they can fuck off and clean

sewers or design cathedrals or write

violin concertos instead.

And my point is that the same argument

could be made about any of the

examples of jobs and professions

you've decided are the worthwhile

ones. YOU'VE decided. Not which ARE

the worthwhile as opposed to the non-

worthwhile because that is not an

objective thing. There is a big difference

between being able to manage on and

a salary being commensurate for a role.

I'm not suggesting MPs "can't get by"

on the salary, I'm suggesting that it

should be paid differently, via a basic

salary rather than the basic plus

expenses system.

Yes, you're quite right. I DID decide myself on my examples. I can't think why I did that. Oh wait! It was my post!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think it's unfair, especially in a time of austerity. But they run the country 'for us' and not themselves so they don't give a shit if they don't set a good example and don't stick to austerity measures for themselves. Makes sense obviously.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

How about this for an idea...

Increase their salaries by 10%.

Take away their gold plated pensions schemes.

Make all expenses have to be receipted. No first class travel, stay in Premier inns or travelodge etc.

And make 15% of MPs redundant to pay for the increased costs... after all, that's what happens in business.

Oh, and pay them the statutory minimum redundancy rate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Given that the wage they already get paid is far an away massively above the minimum wage in this country already,it's pretty disgraceful.

You can argue all you like about getting paid more in the private sector etc,but they have chosen this path!

I've no doubt there are "hardships" in the job,time away from family etc,but tell that to the ladies and gents who clean shot off the streets for minimum wage.

Pampered fuckers on the gravy train...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

I believe that it is pretty well documented that our MP's get paid quite a lot less than their counterparts in equivalent countries. Also as I recall they now have no say in their salary scale after public outcry and demands for it to be set indepenantly. Well it has been set independently and we are where we are. Do we now want to make ot not independent because it has not come out the way we want it?

That aside, is it not really all about perception? £70,000 a year is not really a great deal of money to undertake the job of public representation and essentially be the face of Britain. Especially so when you consider how much senior managers in local councils and authorities now get paid.

Also, ask the people of Scotland if they feel that £70,000 a year is well spent on their MP's with the representation that they now have in Westminster. I suspect they will have no issues at all. That begs the question then, is this moaning really about representation? Should we be complaining about MP's generally just because it is an easy thing to do? Or should we be looking locally and asking if our local MP's are actually doing the job of representing us?

There is a part of me that thinks all of this moaning is not really about MP' s and what they do or get paid but about feeling disenfranchised because unlike the various Nationalist Parties who give their supporters something to rally around, the majority of us have nothing to feel really passionate about and hence we tend to get "outraged" whenever we get the opportunity to let of a bit of collective steam.

In summary, I think £70,000 is not enough for an MP and despite many people's desire to stick it to MP's, would you really want that job? I wouldn't but then again, I despair at the Scottish ward that booted out a highly respected MP who was a known good constituency MP and replaced him with an 18 year old student. Presumably her supporters feel absolutely that she is worth £70,000 a year - not because of her constituency work, but because she will represent Scottish Nationalist interests.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I wouldn't do what they have to do on the salary they get. Just as I wouldn't be a teacher or a nurse on what they are paid.

Given that the salary isn't going to be commensurate with the job and they are being paid out of the public purse as public servants I feel they should be subject to the same public spending restrictions as all public sector jobs.

Re_iews for nurses and other public sector professions have also recommended increases, above the current levels proposed by government. If one re_iew body is being listened to then why not all?

Cameron is saying that he will freeze the pay of cabinet ministers but the increase in pay as an MP will mean that they still get an increase, just not on the extra duties of being a minister.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman over a year ago

West Midlands

No its not

They deserve far more

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ingdong11Man over a year ago

emsworth

"an MP doesn't carry out similar roles within society as those who save lives day in say out and put their own safety before others..

no one forces them to become MP's they can if they wish go off in to other areas and 'earn more'..

given the current financial state 'we' are in and that the same bunch of people have scrapped other independent pay re_iew bodies its poor taste for any of them to accept it..

funny that it was held back till after the election..

it stinks end of.."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa.

Ipsa said that due to cuts in pensions and expenses - such as a ban on claiming for evening meals - the overall package of changes would not cost taxpayers "a penny more".

"such as a ban on claiming for evening meals".......let them take sandwiches.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I believe that it is pretty well documented that our MP's get paid quite a lot less than their counterparts in equivalent countries. Also as I recall they now have no say in their salary scale after public outcry and demands for it to be set indepenantly. Well it has been set independently and we are where we are. Do we now want to make ot not independent because it has not come out the way we want it?

Cut the salaries (and make some redundant) of the senior management in local government and authorities. Just because they are earning far more than they should, that's no reason to give it to an MP as well. Put the whole lot of them on 50K with no expenses except travel and rent for a london flat, IF they live outside of the city.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *angerousEyesMan over a year ago

weston

NO, its ot fair or right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why should they get a pay rise??? Our nhs system is f*cked so badly in debt! Im not on benifits myself but ppl need this and its being cut... Why not try putting the extra money they want into something more benifitial!!

Put them on minimum wage for 6 month lets see how they benifit, chuck them in the real world for a lil while im sure they wouldnt cope.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I love how the great unwashed and uninformed jump in here with the diatribe and fail to look at the facts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's nowhere near enough .

I would hate to have to do what they do , and there are so many better paid jobs out there .

If we want the best we have to pay the best .

Really??? So most politicians aren't already millionaires then???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aneandpaulCouple over a year ago

cleveleys

They need the money don,t you all no how much the Rent boy,s charge this days and the whore,s come on people give them a break

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *T_LEECouple (MM) over a year ago

near you

[Removed by poster at 03/06/15 06:44:57]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I love how the great unwashed and uninformed jump in here with the diatribe and fail to look at the facts."

I've enjoyed reading all the comments. Nothing like a good debate, whatever your _iew is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

Moreover, their pensions should be reduced...

They have a pension scheme which means that for each term served, they get 12.5% of an MP's salary as a pension, up to the full salary.

So for working 5 years, that's a pension of £8,750... work 20 years and your pension is £35,000... at today's salary rate.

Vote for your MP twice, and you've given him or her a pension of £17,500 per year....at today's rate.

So the 20 year old Scottish MP remains an MP until she's 40, gets a pension nearly 50% higher than the average wage.

Pensions were also recommended to be 'drastically reduced' under the IPSA re_iew.... this hasn't been mentioned, so I don't know if they will or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Pensions were also recommended to be 'drastically reduced' under the IPSA re_iew.... this hasn't been mentioned, so I don't know if they will or not. "

From what I remember reading , their pensions are being cut. It didn't mention how or what this saves the public purse money wise,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"How about this for an idea...

Increase their salaries by 10%.

Take away their gold plated pensions schemes.

Make all expenses have to be receipted. No first class travel, stay in Premier inns or travelodge etc.

And make 15% of MPs redundant to pay for the increased costs... after all, that's what happens in business.

Oh, and pay them the statutory minimum redundancy rate."

Yes excellent idea, now which MPs do we make redundant?

What about your MP to start with as it was your idea, then other MPs who have the same concerns or ideals as your MP?

If you make some MPs redundant you leave their constituents without representation.

Therefore you propose to leave that proportion of the population unrepresented

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Yes excellent idea, now which MPs do we make redundant?

What about your MP to start with as it was your idea, then other MPs who have the same concerns or ideals as your MP?

If you make some MPs redundant you leave their constituents without representation.

Therefore you propose to leave that proportion of the population unrepresented

Although I've no idea when constituencies were last looked at. I'm sure some don't represent a large volume of people whereas others have a densely populated constituency.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa.

Ipsa said that due to cuts in pensions and expenses - such as a ban on claiming for evening meals - the overall package of changes would not cost taxpayers "a penny more".

I haven't seen anywhere near 10% for years. Probably never, if I'm honest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just as an aside, why do MPs wages get compared to minimum wage?

Nobody in my company earns anything as low as minimum wage because we are experienced professionals and could choose to work somewhere else.

The top MPs, the ones who organise investigate, plan, design and implement policy, legislation and finances for the country pretty much all have a high level of education, knowledge and experience.

Yes things could be better, but think about how hard it is to make improvements just at a tiny scale where you work.

So, I would rather have the best people available running the country. Unfortunately the MPs salary structure means that the best are running the top businesses.

Those we do have as our top MPs could earn a lot more in business and live away from all the public criticism, but choose not to and are still called greedy.

You know what? I can't believe I've just defended MPs. I suppose it just shows how unreasonable most of the comments are above!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *educedWoman over a year ago

Birmingham

I don't know how to feel about this? The opinions for and against all have merit.

All I know, is that I am running a project and a community centre with an annual budget of just £49k. This includes my wages. I engage with over 1000 people and work intensively with about 400 hundred of those. I wish my budget would increase by 10%.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa.

Ipsa said that due to cuts in pensions and expenses - such as a ban on claiming for evening meals - the overall package of changes would not cost taxpayers "a penny more".

Think I will leave my job in the nhs and become a waste of resources, money grabbing false claiming mp....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

MP's are not 'the best'

they are elected! They need no training, no qualifications, no experience, no skills to be an MP.

They don't 'run the country'. It happens when they are all on recess quite happily. They formulate, initiate and facilitate, inter alia, legislation. That's not the same as 'running the country'.

If 'we're all in it together', why aren't all public sector workers getting a 10% pay increase?

In my opinion (and unwashed or not

) I still believe that MP's prime concern and motivation should be public service and that £69k a year is quite sufficient.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"That's what makes their salary scale difficult to understand in some ways. It is the same, across the board. Most other professions, you go in at the bottom and work your way up. You get rewarded for good performance, no increase for a poor performance oetc. Some MP's are passionate about what they do and go above and beyond. I would happily pay them more. Others, just go about the motions, with little achieved from their time in office."

That's my thoughts too, almost 'performance related pay'. If the public sector needs pay restraint MPs also need to set an example though. Otherwise they simply gift the moral high-ground to the public sector unions.

I don't see the argument 'but it is an independent recommendation' since MPs vote for who is appointed. (I wonder if they would appoint White Dee for example). They showed this when they deselected the lady who was in charge of expenses claims a few years ago.

I'm also not sure the argument 'we got into a little bother over expenses, so let's simply do away with expenses give everyone the money as a lump-sum instead' argument is very convincing either.

Mr ddc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"It's supposed to be a vocation not a money maker!

If you can't get by on £1200 a week with full expenses... I think politics is not for you!"

The only problem with that attitude is that £1200 a week is only attractive to those currently earning less than that or those that are so rich already that it no longer matters how much they earn.

The sort of people we actually need running the country are the sort of people who run small to medium sized successful businesses and £70,000 aprx. is not going to enough to attract them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't have a _iew on this, well I do but I'm not saying, except to say that you voted for them. Any complaints fall squarely on the electorate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"It's nowhere near enough .

I would hate to have to do what they do , and there are so many better paid jobs out there .

If we want the best we have to pay the best .

It should be for public service not lining their own pockets. If they can't scrape by on £69k pa or whatever - tough. "

So, basically, what you're saying is that politics should only be an option for the poor, rich or unambitious but not anymore who has to actually earn money to live.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"Shame they can't pass a bit of it down to the people who support them. I get naff all this year.

Well, hopefully, if they do their job well, we'll all get richer in the end.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A 2011 survey found that MPs work on average 69 hours a week.

Based on that, I have about the same hourly rate as an MP and I think they are more than worth it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting"

That's true (you been talking to Dave about the Big Society by any chance?) but we used to have that system for parliament less than 100 years ago. In those days MPs got neither a salary nor realistic experiences. The reality of that system was that the house of commons was mostly filled only with those that could afford not to earn, mostly the younger brothers of the people sitting in the house of lords, not really very representative of the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A 2011 survey found that MPs work on average 69 hours a week.

Based on that, I have about the same hourly rate as an MP and I think they are more than worth it."

what type of work do they do for 69 hours a week..? most proberly signing bits of paper and doing backhander deals or sitting in the commons talking shit and getting d*unk in the bar when the session finishes..all at our expense abet..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"It's supposed to be a vocation not a money maker!

If you can't get by on £1200 a week with full expenses... I think politics is not for you!

The only problem with that attitude is that £1200 a week is only attractive to those currently earning less than that or those that are so rich already that it no longer matters how much they earn.

The sort of people we actually need running the country are the sort of people who run small to medium sized successful businesses and £70,000 aprx. is not going to enough to attract them."

I am with you on this but the level of disagreement suggests that people really do not feel represented by their MP.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage.

Personally I'd rather have an MP who's doing the job well and has the intelligence and judgment to make the right decisions for the benefit of the whole country. Whether he's doing that because he has a vocation or because he's getting paid, while not irrelevant, is definitely secondary.

But, whereas the ones who may be willing and can afford to do it as a vocation will still be willing to do if the pay is good, the right ones who don't or can't afford to have a vocation won't do it if it's not paid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"I thought you only get a pay rise when the company you work for does well, so far they deserve a pay cut."

The pay rise is meant to be over all neutral in that, although the basis pay is going up the amount of experiences they can claim is being decreased.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"By the "if they can't get by on £'x'" logic, none of us should be earning more than the suggested living wage. .

But a job doesn't have to be a vocation.

There's hundreds of thousands of people give their time freely every week for dozens of different things from local council to charity to environmental work!

To imagine that nobody would do anything unless paid is really very insulting

I don't want MPs who just give their time here and there, I want people who do it full time. And without paying for it how would anyone except those with other sources of wealth be able to do it? .

You can live quite well on 65k a year with a free house, free travel, free food, free hotels, business expenditures.... Christ it's not exactly poverty!

What I want from an mp is dedication, and you can't buy that

It's not on the cheap though.

There are millions of people who would love to earn that money!

Not everything in life is about money and it certainly doesn't always buy you the best!

Good for him! Hardly relevant though.

There are probably many millions of people who would like to earn my salary. Doesn't mean they should or could do my job. .

Of course it's relevant, you don't need the brains of Britain to do an mps job, what you need is dedication and you can't buy dedication, it brings its own rewards!... That's why it's relevant"

But you can't use dedication as a deposit on a house. Neither does being dedicated necessarily make you good at what you do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"It's nowhere near enough .

I would hate to have to do what they do , and there are so many better paid jobs out there .

If we want the best we have to pay the best .

Really??? So most politicians aren't already millionaires then???"

I'm pretty sure they're not. Do you have any statistics to back that statement up?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uited staffs guyMan over a year ago

staffordshire

As a point of principle the MPs pay rise, as a result of the recommendations of an independent pay re_iew body, should be allowed to go through only if the government accept the same principle with the independent pay re_iew bodies in the rest of the public sector, which to date they're ignoring

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's supposed to be a vocation not a money maker!

If you can't get by on £1200 a week with full expenses... I think politics is not for you!

The only problem with that attitude is that £1200 a week is only attractive to those currently earning less than that or those that are so rich already that it no longer matters how much they earn.

The sort of people we actually need running the country are the sort of people who run small to medium sized successful businesses and £70,000 aprx. is not going to enough to attract them."

Dennis Skinner, ken Clarke and Tony benn all great politicians all from different backgrounds and none of them are in it for the money!.

That 1200 quid is yours, all expenses are paid, that's like getting 3000 a week in reality, it's a perfectly reasonable middle class living.

You don't need the very cleverest people to stand for government, you need people who are dedicated to it as an interest.

I personally don't want an mp who's in it for the money!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andy_tomMan over a year ago

wolverhampton

"I think even after the raise they are still underpaid."

wtf , underpaid i dont think so , i think they are over paid , and screwing the rest of us ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"As a point of principle the MPs pay rise, as a result of the recommendations of an independent pay re_iew body, should be allowed to go through only if the government accept the same principle with the independent pay re_iew bodies in the rest of the public sector, which to date they're ignoring

If it's a principle it applies to all or none "

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The difference between MPs and teachers/nurses is that MPs don't need to be qualified in anything to win a popularity contest. I actually don't buy the argument that paying more would attract better, more skilled people into politics. The argument fails anyway as soon as a popular buffoon wins on the day.

However, if you have a good MP they work hard. It's not all 'just signing a bit if paper' as suggested above. Most aren't millionaires, certainly not those new SNP MPs. Those I have met live in homes in terraces just like yours and mine (well hours might be considerably better) and work long, unsociable hours where they are open to public scrutiny for everything in their lives.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

The new SNP MPs (mostly) aren't millionaires but they're funded by millionaires - the Weir family from Largs. £161 million (and counting) from the Lottery.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"MP's are not 'the best'

they are elected! They need no training, no qualifications, no experience, no skills to be an MP.

They don't 'run the country'. It happens when they are all on recess quite happily. They formulate, initiate and facilitate, inter alia, legislation. That's not the same as 'running the country'."

I'd what you say was completely true I would completely agree with you.

It isn't, so I don't.

Can you tell me which uneducated and inexperienced MPs decide fiscal policy, legislation and budgeting?

Or is the above tabloid rhetoric?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layer oneMan over a year ago

mirfield

Fuck um ... No

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

Completely agree, however I have no doubt that any recommendation of an independent re_iew body that recommended pay increases for public sector workers, especially if it wasn't just for "front-line" workers who have the appeal to tug on the heart strings, would be roundly shot down by the general public.

There are already major recruitment problems in the civil service, NHS and local government to professional higher level positions, because the salaries are so out of step with the private sector and the old adages of job stability and final salary pension are no more. These are the jobs which when filled by the best people pay for themselves in savings or increased income many, many times over.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

It seems a lot of folk don't think anyone should be paid more than they are.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them."

There is a general rule of thumb that most people think anything less than half what they earn is too poor and anything more than twice what they earn is too rich.

AS average UK pay is around £30,000 these days it's not surprising that most people think that anything above about £60,000 is too much and anything below £15,000 is too little.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them."
.

Your zigzagging a bit.

Were talking about whether they should up there current 60+k wage plus 60+k expenses

If you can't get have a decent living on 120k a year, you've got a very rich taste in my honest opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them..

Your zigzagging a bit.

Were talking about whether they should up there current 60+k wage plus 60+k expenses

If you can't get have a decent living on 120k a year, you've got a very rich taste in my honest opinion.

As stated almost ad nauseum now: the point isn't whether they CAN get by/have a good standard of living on the salary: of course they can. It's whether that's what the salary SHOULD be, as a reflection of what the role entails. And on that basis I think it should be more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Oh it's should they get more in principle. No they shouldn't it encourages the wrong sort of people into politics IMO

Heart surgeons should of course get no less than 3 million and teachers no less than 1 million but that's just should

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them..

Your zigzagging a bit.

Were talking about whether they should up there current 60+k wage plus 60+k expenses

If you can't get have a decent living on 120k a year, you've got a very rich taste in my honest opinion.

Except it's not £60K+ in expenses, is it?

Average claims by party 2011/12

DUP £59,616

SNP £53,032

LibD £45,245

SDLP £43,917

PCym £42,285

Oth £40,786

Alli £39,958

Resp £39,067

Lab £37,613

Con £22,896

Grn £22,896

Spkr £8,266

SFein £2,701

Avg for all £36,184

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Oh it's should they get more in principle. No they shouldn't it encourages the wrong sort of people into politics IMO

Heart surgeons should of course get no less than 3 million and teachers no less than 1 million but that's just should"

If that's what you think teachers and heart surgeons should get then that's what you think.

I think plenty of jobs should get more than they currently get. I think others should get less. But I'm not an independent pay body so I don't expect anyone to listen to me anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I was just writing a post about the difference between cost and value and the difference between public and private sector... But have just deleted it because it will just be responded to with "the nurses... The teachers... "

Seriously, believe what you want. There are no tabloid exaggeration or partial journalism. Everything you read and know is true.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

Except it's not £60K+ in expenses, is it?

Average claims by party 2011/12

DUP £59,616

SNP £53,032

LibD £45,245

SDLP £43,917

PCym £42,285

Oth £40,786

Alli £39,958

Resp £39,067

Lab £37,613

Con £22,896

Grn £22,896

Spkr £8,266

SFein £2,701

Avg for all £36,184"

Are those figure adjusted for distance?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's a principle it applies to all or none

That is my point.

I don't think the role is paid well enough but neither are teachers or nurses. All are public sector workers paid by the state.

The principle of the independent re_iew should be applied across the board and not just to them.

I'm not quite sure how we have got here but we seem to have a general populace that resents anyone earning over £26k pa. Unless it's them..

Your zigzagging a bit.

Were talking about whether they should up there current 60+k wage plus 60+k expenses

If you can't get have a decent living on 120k a year, you've got a very rich taste in my honest opinion.

Except it's not £60K+ in expenses, is it?

Average claims by party 2011/12

DUP £59,616

SNP £53,032

LibD £45,245

SDLP £43,917

PCym £42,285

Oth £40,786

Alli £39,958

Resp £39,067

Lab £37,613

Con £22,896

Grn £22,896

Spkr £8,266

SFein £2,701

Avg for all £36,184"
.

No but they can claim 60k in expenses, that's my point!.

Removing expenses and paying a flat wage just encourages centralisation where those who live closest get more!.

I don't want politicians in it for the money, I want them to have a reasonable living like they currently do and be in it for the right reasons of vocation!

My whole point about Jonas Salk was that believe it or not, you'll still attract clever bright individuals with a half decent wage but who are there doing it for the reason of they want to do it and I'd rather have a passionate mp than a money grabbing carpet bagger doing a good job but only for the money!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you genuinely believe there are enough individuals of that ilk out there, capable of meeting the demands of the job, with the social skills to get themselves elected, who can both afford to and want to do the job for "just enough?" I think you're comparing chalk and cheese. The fields of science, arts, mathematics, research often attract people doing it for the love of it. Could those same people cope with the decision making and figurehead role that's involved? MPs by their definition need to be generalists in terms of skills, they're not specialists devoting themselves to a niche area of research.

In any case, why the dichotomy between selfless people who'll scrape by on a crust for the love of it versus your "money grabbing carpet baggers"? Other options are available!

And actually, I'd rather have someone doing a good job for the money than a mediocre job for the love of it.

I wouldn't do my job for less than I get paid now. Not because I'm a money grabbing bastard (I'd have taken my skills to the private sector a long time ago if I was), but because I know what I'm worth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

OK I'll add Tony benn, ken Clarke, Margret Thatcher, Dennis Skinner, Gordon brown and the late Charles Kennedy.

All managed to get into politics and made great career politicians.

All bright clever individuals who could have made more in the private sector if they had wanted to

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"OK I'll add Tony benn, ken Clarke, Margret Thatcher, Dennis Skinner, Gordon brown and the late Charles Kennedy.

All managed to get into politics and made great career politicians.

All bright clever individuals who could have made more in the private sector if they had wanted to"

So what makes you think a 10% pay rise will lead to fewer of these people and more "money grabbing carpet baggers"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If you don't know the difference between somebody doing something for money!

And somebody doing something for love, well we'll remain agreeing to disagree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"OK I'll add Tony benn, ken Clarke, Margret Thatcher, Dennis Skinner, Gordon brown and the late Charles Kennedy.

All managed to get into politics and made great career politicians.

All bright clever individuals who could have made more in the private sector if they had wanted to

So what makes you think a 10% pay rise will lead to fewer of these people and more "money grabbing carpet baggers"?"
.

Because if we're in austerity, leaders lead by example!

Churchill was loved by the military because he came from the front line to telling people who are going on the front line what to do!.

Those people hold you in respect!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If you don't know the difference between somebody doing something for money!

And somebody doing something for love, well we'll remain agreeing to disagree.

Not a strong argument.

I wouldn't even let someone cut my hair on that basis, never mind make international trade, legislation and financial decisions

Doing the job because they love it or because they are getting paid because they are good at it?

I'll take the barber who's doing it for the cash thanks very much. Same goes for the MPs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If you don't know the difference between somebody doing something for money!

And somebody doing something for love, well we'll remain agreeing to disagree.

Of course I know the difference. But I'm realistic enough to know you won't get 650 people who will do it for love who will also be capable of doing a good job of something that's actually quite difficult, who want to put themselves up for that level of public scrutiny, who will get elected by a fickle and occasionally deluded populace.

After all, why aren't they already doing it? Or would we have to reduce the salary to the living wage to attract the altruistic vocation crowd who would do so much of a better job than anyone who has money as even a teeny tiny consideration in their life (i.e. most people?)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

I still think they should get more

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"OK I'll add Tony benn, ken Clarke, Margret Thatcher, Dennis Skinner, Gordon brown and the late Charles Kennedy.

All managed to get into politics and made great career politicians.

All bright clever individuals who could have made more in the private sector if they had wanted to

So what makes you think a 10% pay rise will lead to fewer of these people and more "money grabbing carpet baggers"?.

Because if we're in austerity, leaders lead by example!

Churchill was loved by the military because he came from the front line to telling people who are going on the front line what to do!.

Those people hold you in respect!"

If they were doing it for love and doing a good job they'd have my respect. If they were doing it for a reasonably commensurate salary and doing a good job, they'd have my respect. If they really, really cared and got paid 6p but were actually a bit inept, they probably wouldn't.

As for them respecting me, any of the above can hold me in respect, even the ones who'd like to be paid appropriately for the work that they do.

I don't agree that this is the way to lead by example anyway. The way to lead by example would be to implement the recommendations of this pay re_iew and then implement the recommendations of the pay re_iews for all the other employees of the public purse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If you don't know the difference between somebody doing something for money!

And somebody doing something for love, well we'll remain agreeing to disagree.

Not a strong argument.

I wouldn't even let someone cut my hair on that basis, never mind make international trade, legislation and financial decisions

Doing the job because they love it or because they are getting paid because they are good at it?

I'll take the barber who's doing it for the cash thanks very much. Same goes for the MPs. "
.

You keep making the same assumptions that others are making.

We already have good barbers as you would say?, why would you want to swap the good barber you have for another good barber but pay more!.

You keep assuming we're only attracting bad thick stupid wayward idiots for this pittance of 60k.

I'm of the belief we already attract clever people without needing to pay more, and what's more we attract them for the right reasons!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If you don't know the difference between somebody doing something for money!

And somebody doing something for love, well we'll remain agreeing to disagree.

What are you taking about

Look at the cabinet of the Tory party or the labour party

It's chocka full of Oxford university graduates with degrees in the best subjects

How the fuck does paying them more make them work better?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I think that it's fair if they allow all of the other "Civil Servants" the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

Except it's not £60K+ in expenses, is it?

Average claims by party 2011/12

DUP £59,616

SNP £53,032

LibD £45,245

SDLP £43,917

PCym £42,285

Oth £40,786

Alli £39,958

Resp £39,067

Lab £37,613

Con £22,896

Grn £22,896

Spkr £8,266

SFein £2,701

Avg for all £36,184

Are those figure adjusted for distance?"

They are the raw figures

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

Except it's not £60K+ in expenses, is it?

Average claims by party 2011/12

DUP £59,616

SNP £53,032

LibD £45,245

SDLP £43,917

PCym £42,285

Oth £40,786

Alli £39,958

Resp £39,067

Lab £37,613

Con £22,896

Grn £22,896

Spkr £8,266

SFein £2,701

Avg for all £36,184

Are those figure adjusted for distance?"

They are the raw figures

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

Conservatives were very good

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

"Conservatives were very good

That's because many live in the South East and commute. ..they do not have second homes to finance. This is not a criticism. ...simply pointing out a fact.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

"I think that it's fair if they allow all of the other "Civil Servants" the same."

"We are all in this together".....only some appear to be in this more than others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"Conservatives were very good

That's because many live in the South East and commute. ..they do not have second homes to finance. This is not a criticism. ...simply pointing out a fact. "

Sinn Fien were even better!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

"Conservatives were very good

That's because many live in the South East and commute. ..they do not have second homes to finance. This is not a criticism. ...simply pointing out a fact.

Sinn Fien were even better!!"

They do not take their seats in the House.....so there is very little that they can claim for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"How about this for an idea...

Increase their salaries by 10%.

Take away their gold plated pensions schemes.

Make all expenses have to be receipted. No first class travel, stay in Premier inns or travelodge etc.

And make 15% of MPs redundant to pay for the increased costs... after all, that's what happens in business.

Oh, and pay them the statutory minimum redundancy rate.

Yes excellent idea, now which MPs do we make redundant?

What about your MP to start with as it was your idea, then other MPs who have the same concerns or ideals as your MP?

If you make some MPs redundant you leave their constituents without representation.

Therefore you propose to leave that proportion of the population unrepresented

Why would you leave constituents without representation? Actually you don't.... you change the constituency borders... no one will be ' unrepresented' as you suggest.

As for which MPs to make redundant? Who cares? If an MP is doing their job properly, it doesn't matter which party they represent.

And don't forget, in 2010, the tories proposed reducing MP numbers by 10%, but that was blocked by the Libs....

So, as I said, make 15% of them redundant, in order to pay for the pay rise.

And like I said, it happens in business, .... Do you think they reduce production when they make redundancies? No, they don't... they just try to increase efficiency and productivity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrissyjezCouple over a year ago

kingswinford

For what they do and the shit they get I wouldn't argue if they got 100k a year. What I do object to is the fat cat bosses and the bankers who almost brought the country to its knees are still getting away with blue murder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"A 2011 survey found that MPs work on average 69 hours a week.

Based on that, I have about the same hourly rate as an MP and I think they are more than worth it."

Which ones work 69 hours a week? That's bullshit! Look a

Up theyworkfor you to find the attendances for MPs! And apart from that, then look at how many other ' outside interests' they have! If they're all so busy carrying on the work of parliament, they wouldn't have the time for any other outside (paid or otherwise) interests!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Anyone want to compare the wages of an MP with a player in the reserves squad of a team like Hull?

Value/worth? Anyone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"A 2011 survey found that MPs work on average 69 hours a week.

Based on that, I have about the same hourly rate as an MP and I think they are more than worth it.

Which ones work 69 hours a week? That's bullshit! Look a

Work done doesn't exactly reflect attendance. There's surgeries, local events, visits to factories, hospitals and so on + travelling to and from their constituency. They don't all represent London seats.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone want to compare the wages of an MP with a player in the reserves squad of a team like Hull?

Value/worth? Anyone?"
.

What?

You keep implying the same old nonsense, exactly who do you expect to attract that's better than what we've currently got for an extra 15 grand a year?...

Top ceos well no you'd have to pay a million

Top Mathematicians .. Well no they work for banks doing algorithms and complex formula for derivatives for millions

No we already attract the very best ppe students from the greatest university on the planet!

Gordon brown, lord Mendelson, David and Ed Milliband, Ed balls, Yvette cooper, jacqui smith, Ruth kelly and James purnell off the top of my head from the labour party alone... Do I really need to tell you the Tories and the bullingdon members.

Fuck me who do you expect to recruit better than this lot with an extra 10 grand!!!!

Hull reserves!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

MPs may or may not be worth the extra. Just like the other 30 million other working people in this country and billions across the world. It is irrelevant.

At a time of austerity, if we are all in this together, then we should all tighten our belts.

It is leadership but it is also empathy with others. The remaining staff at Monarch airlines took a 30% pay CUT to keep their jobs.

We all deserve a pay rise. I am self employed and havent had a pay rise in over five years. So what, thats life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The increase would run the NHS for 21 minutes. If it brings in better MPs, rather than those with private means, and they make a 0.01% improvement in the NHS, then it would save 10.9 million.

Pay'em and be damned!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *onfusedrichMan over a year ago

Lichfield

It's a disgrace ! Lots of 'real' people's have never had a 10% rise in their life ! My wife works in health care and hasn't had a rise of any description for 7 years ! Why are those tossers worth 10% ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

I'm just really glad I'm not employed by any of the tight arsed people on this thread who seem to think the less you pay someone the better they'll work for you. Guess for many of them it's a case of you reap what you sow.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

They can't win - they set it themselves and people hate them - they have an independent body to set it and people still hate them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hepisstakersCouple (FF) over a year ago

London

of course it isn't fair. but that's what you get for voting tory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andy_tomMan over a year ago

wolverhampton

"It's a disgrace ! Lots of 'real' people's have never had a 10% rise in their life ! My wife works in health care and hasn't had a rise of any description for 7 years ! Why are those tossers worth 10% ? "

have to agree with you .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone want to compare the wages of an MP with a player in the reserves squad of a team like Hull?

Value/worth? Anyone?.

What?

You keep implying the same old nonsense, exactly who do you expect to attract that's better than what we've currently got for an extra 15 grand a year?...

Top ceos well no you'd have to pay a million

Top Mathematicians .. Well no they work for banks doing algorithms and complex formula for derivatives for millions

No we already attract the very best ppe students from the greatest university on the planet!

Fuck me who do you expect to recruit better than this lot with an extra 10 grand!!!!

Hull reserves!"

You've conveniently sidestepped the previous points about these people already being wealthy, having outside incomes and more.

They can afford to forego a comparable private industry salary.

If these are the type of people you want predominantly in government then again, you are right.

If anyone wants the well educated, intelligent and experienced people from a wider range of society, who don't have the family wealth supporting them, you need to rethink the salary structure to make thinking about being an MP a viable career move.

I travel 2-3 times a month to London for work. It changes a 7.5 hour working day with total 1.5 hours commute to a 4 hours working day with a 10 hour commute (public transport, train, tube, walk and then in reverse)

Occassionally I stay over.

All of this means it's an absolute bastard.

You would need to pay me an awful lot more than what I am currently earning to make me uproot my family and/or travel even more.

Also, having every aspect of what I do made public? Not a fucking chance.

You would need to quadruple what I'm on to make me even consider it.

So yes, once again, if you take select parts of the overall case you can see how these headlines look bad.

But you have to laugh when people simultaneously quote contradictory Sun headlines, wanting change then criticising those attempts to change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"of course it isn't fair. but that's what you get for voting tory."

You honestly think the pay rise would not be going through if Labour had won. The only created this system and voted for it. Get real, not everything is the fault of the 'evil Tories' this system was put in place in 2009 by Labour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Firstly I don't hate mps

Secondly I don't think we can honestly get better people than what we have now for another 10k

Thirdly I don't think politics should be a job but a vocation

Fourthly I think there paid enough to do that vocation.

Fifthly I think removing expenses for an increase wage is a bad idea as it promotes centralisation.

We don't have bad politicians perse we've got a bad system that promotes corruption, paying them more wouldn't fix that imo

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

have to agree with you .

Let me get this clear. Because your wife is not getting paid fairly you think not paying MPs fairly will somehow make it better. How does that work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They reject other independent pay bodies suggestions ie public sector to suit own purposes mp are in p7blic sector we the taxpayers pay their income so no its not gair.

Cameron can and should override ipsa but because tories asre so fucking hreedy they wont so much for being in ot together.

Any mp that accepts it and then dare criticise say nurses etc for striking because of frozen wages can no longer be taken seriously.

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"of course it isn't fair. but that's what you get for voting tory.

Sorry, what are we agreeing with now? The side that says "we need change because the government is shit" , or the one that says "change is a ridiculous notion because look, we have the finest minds from the finest university"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

have to agree with you .

Let me get this clear. Because your wife is not getting paid fairly you think not paying MPs fairly will somehow make it better. How does that work?"

It works like this the same people that are independent suggested pay increase for public sector it was ignored and not given so for tories to actually accept the oncrease is beyond the pale.

How can you think its ok for the folk ie mps telling folk money tight public money wise when public money pays mps thats why is not right or fair.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They reject other independent pay bodies suggestions ie public sector to suit own purposes mp are in p7blic sector we the taxpayers pay their income so no its not gair.

Cameron can and should override ipsa but because tories asre so fucking hreedy they wont so much for being in ot together.

Any mp that accepts it and then dare criticise say nurses etc for striking because of frozen wages can no longer be taken seriously.

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

No, the tories aren't greedy: they are not earning anywhere near as much as they could get if they worked in the private sector, or sang some songs on the radio or kicked a football.

Should they get a pay rise?

Dunno. Anyone bothered their arse to look behind the headlines?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

have to agree with you .

Let me get this clear. Because your wife is not getting paid fairly you think not paying MPs fairly will somehow make it better. How does that work?

It works like this the same people that are independent suggested pay increase for public sector it was ignored and not given so for tories to actually accept the oncrease is beyond the pale.

How can you think its ok for the folk ie mps telling folk money tight public money wise when public money pays mps thats why is not right or fair.

And did you look and see what those recommended pay increases would cost in terms of increased tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone want to compare the wages of an MP with a player in the reserves squad of a team like Hull?

Value/worth? Anyone?.

What?

You keep implying the same old nonsense, exactly who do you expect to attract that's better than what we've currently got for an extra 15 grand a year?...

Top ceos well no you'd have to pay a million

Top Mathematicians .. Well no they work for banks doing algorithms and complex formula for derivatives for millions

No we already attract the very best ppe students from the greatest university on the planet!

Fuck me who do you expect to recruit better than this lot with an extra 10 grand!!!!

Hull reserves!

You've conveniently sidestepped the previous points about these people already being wealthy, having outside incomes and more.

They can afford to forego a comparable private industry salary.

If these are the type of people you want predominantly in government then again, you are right.

Occassionally I stay over.

All of this means it's an absolute bastard.

You would need to pay me an awful lot more than what I am currently earning to make me uproot my family and/or travel even more.

Also, having every aspect of what I do made public? Not a fucking chance.

You would need to quadruple what I'm on to make me even consider it.

So yes, once again, if you take select parts of the overall case you can see how these headlines look bad.

But you have to laugh when people simultaneously quote contradictory Sun headlines, wanting change then criticising those attempts to change. "
.

I don't read the sun

Anyhow, let's get back to this getting better people, you did say better not more diverse!

So who do you think you will recruit better than a bunch of top people from Oxford that we've already got for another 10k.

As for diverse well I hate to point out that Dennis Skinner is an ex coal miner and a brilliant career mp

And I'm afraid to tell you there's dozens of mps from every background.

Just because your not willing to do it, doesn't mean others aren't! And already do!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"They reject other independent pay bodies suggestions ie public sector to suit own purposes mp are in p7blic sector we the taxpayers pay their income so no its not gair.

Cameron can and should override ipsa but because tories asre so fucking hreedy they wont so much for being in ot together.

But Labour and the SNP both said they would not over rule the independent pay body. Why are they not greedy to? The reality is that most of the opposition to the independent pay re_iew has actually come from members of the Tory party.

This is not a party political argument. Why try and make it one. We may or may not be 'all in it together' but as far as the pay rise is concerned all, or at least most of, the MPs are 'in it together'

Any mp that accepts it and then dare criticise say nurses etc for striking because of frozen wages can no longer be taken seriously.

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

How can he do that? The vote for this pay rise was taken by the last parliament (LibDems were against not implementing the re_iew as was Labour and most of the Conservatives) using a system that was introduced and set up by Labour and Gordon Brown. How can Cameron change it with out the support of the MPs? He can't

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"of course it isn't fair. but that's what you get for voting tory.

I personally am in favour of MPs getting a pay rise but my comments were about trying to blame the whole thing on the 'evil Tories' when the reality is that it was MPs from all parties that agreed to this system and, if anything, the Conservative party had more opposition to it then any of the others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No not when the public sector are only getting 1%

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"..................

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

He has a (small) majority. He could, if he chose, issue a three line whip and reject it - but he won't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

have to agree with you .

Let me get this clear. Because your wife is not getting paid fairly you think not paying MPs fairly will somehow make it better. How does that work?

It works like this the same people that are independent suggested pay increase for public sector it was ignored and not given so for tories to actually accept the oncrease is beyond the pale.

But it's not just the Tories who have accepted this it's all the MPs using a system set up by Labour in 2009. How can it be the Tories fault?

How can you think its ok for the folk ie mps telling folk money tight public money wise when public money pays mps thats why is not right or fair.

I don't think it's fair but I do think MPs should be paid more. I also think that when governments set up independent pay re_iew bodies, especially if those re_iews are set up in conjunction with no strike agreements, they should stick to the recommendation of those re_iew bodies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"..................

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

He has a (small) majority. He could, if he chose, issue a three line whip and reject it - but he won't."

He could but he only needs 12 MPs to rebel and it would not happen unless he had the full support of the LibDems, Labour and the SNP, all of which have clearly said, on many occasions, that will not back him overruling the pay re_iew body. So he can't change it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm trying to explain why the salary grades for MPs will not bring in a better/alternative bunch of people; the type of which we find successful in the private sector, which could bring about real change.

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm trying to explain why the salary grades for MPs will not bring in a better/alternative bunch of people; the type of which we find successful in the private sector, which could bring about real change.

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative. "

Personally I'd rather have someone capable,not just willing to do it.

But it seems like I'm in a minority of 3 or 4.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"..................

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

He has a (small) majority. He could, if he chose, issue a three line whip and reject it - but he won't.

His majority of 12 is an overall majority. Even if the Speaker's Cat voted against him, he'd still win.

None but the suicidal tendency of the Tory party would vote against a three line whip on such a trivial matter.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative. "
.

So to facilitate change, we need to pay more money to the people who produce change?

OK start with teachers, nurses, police officers, doctors and council staff.... All of which are under paid what the private sector would pay!.

What makes you think that somebody who runs a business can run a country any better.

Jimmy carter was successful in business but is considered one of the worst presidents in the 20th century! (Not my personal _iew I would add).

What I'm saying to you is who are you getting thats better than the current lot for this extra ten grand?

I hate to point this out but successful business people would want a minimum of 500k+ plus to leave their successful business and join your recruitment drive for mps.

If we're just taking about whether it's fair to pay somebody we've already got more, than obviously I would say yes, it's fair.

But under capitalism you pay the minimum amount you have to, not a fair amount

That's why we have a minimum wage and not a fair wage

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"..................

Sums up the government same applies to all parties but this can be over ridden if Cameron wished do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

He has a (small) majority. He could, if he chose, issue a three line whip and reject it - but he won't.

His majority of 12 is an overall majority. Even if the Speaker's Cat voted against him, he'd still win.

None but the suicidal tendency of the Tory party would vote against a three line whip on such a trivial matter."

Would you vote against a pay rise for yourself? It's not trivial to them and way more than 12 would vote against not implementing it. We know this as a fact because well over 100 said they would last time it was raised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative.

Personally I'd rather have someone capable,not just willing to do it.

But it seems like I'm in a minority of 3 or 4."
.

Just because your in a minority doesn't mean your wrong, I know I'm a green party member

I'm just questioning your logical conclusion as to pay grades

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative.

Personally I'd rather have someone capable,not just willing to do it.

But it seems like I'm in a minority of 3 or 4..

Just because your in a minority doesn't mean your wrong, I know I'm a green party member

I'm just questioning your logical conclusion as to pay grades"

Just because you're in a minority or a majority doesn't mean you're right. You're only right if you agree with me.

At least that seems to be the general attitude these days.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Willing to do it" sums up perfectly the problem. Lets just stick with those willing to do it. And we can stop complaining when we don't have choice or a real alternative.

Personally I'd rather have someone capable,not just willing to do it.

But it seems like I'm in a minority of 3 or 4..

Just because your in a minority doesn't mean your wrong, I know I'm a green party member

I'm just questioning your logical conclusion as to pay grades

Just because you're in a minority or a majority doesn't mean you're right. You're only right if you agree with me.

At least that seems to be the general attitude these days."
.

I concur at your concurrence!

Don't worry once I've taken over the running of the world, I'll ban this democracy bollocks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Yes, I think MPs should be paid more. It means:

a) less likely to be open to corruption

b) politics doesn't become the playing of rich people who can afford it

c) the reason the expenses scandal erupted was precisely because MPs pay had been kept down for so long they found other ways to make it pay

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A 2011 survey found that MPs work on average 69 hours a week.

Based on that, I have about the same hourly rate as an MP and I think they are more than worth it."

I work 50 hours a week and don't earn anywhere near 50% of an MP's wage. I'm damn sure I'm good value for money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes, I think MPs should be paid more. It means:

a) less likely to be open to corruption

b) politics doesn't become the playing of rich people who can afford it

c) the reason the expenses scandal erupted was precisely because MPs pay had been kept down for so long they found other ways to make it pay"

the reason why the expenses scandal erupted is because this government like many other goverments around the world are corrupt..they have bben for 1000s of years..you will very rarely see a poor senator or MP..lol they are all the same..fucking gangsters

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"Yes, I think MPs should be paid more. It means:

a) less likely to be open to corruption

b) politics doesn't become the playing of rich people who can afford it

c) the reason the expenses scandal erupted was precisely because MPs pay had been kept down for so long they found other ways to make it pay"

So being paid more means you're less likely to be open to corruption? Care to ask Sept Blatter and his cronies that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

Austerity for one and Not the Other..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Yes, I think MPs should be paid more. It means:

a) less likely to be open to corruption

b) politics doesn't become the playing of rich people who can afford it

c) the reason the expenses scandal erupted was precisely because MPs pay had been kept down for so long they found other ways to make it pay

So being paid more means you're less likely to be open to corruption? Care to ask Sept Blatter and his cronies that? "

Yes, I'd rather they'd be bribed by the public than by corporations

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it! "

I find it very difficult to watch when audience members quite clearly not interested in listening to panel members comments ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it!

I find it very difficult to watch when audience members quite clearly not interested in listening to panel members comments ..."

You must find it difficult every week on at least one question then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it!

I find it very difficult to watch when audience members quite clearly not interested in listening to panel members comments ...

You must find it difficult every week on at least one question then.

Just switched off - qt used to be informative and interesting - These days it seems to end up being a cacophony of noise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it!

I find it very difficult to watch when audience members quite clearly not interested in listening to panel members comments ...

You must find it difficult every week on at least one question then.

Just switched off - qt used to be informative and interesting - These days it seems to end up being a cacophony of noise."

Mostly the panelists speaking over each other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"It's the first topic on QT - as expected.

Yep just watching it!

I find it very difficult to watch when audience members quite clearly not interested in listening to panel members comments ...

You must find it difficult every week on at least one question then.

Just switched off - qt used to be informative and interesting - These days it seems to end up being a cacophony of noise.

Mostly the panelists speaking over each other.

And the majority of the audiences appear to have been chosen on the size of the chip on their shoulder(s)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"Yes, I think MPs should be paid more. It means:

a) less likely to be open to corruption

b) politics doesn't become the playing of rich people who can afford it

c) the reason the expenses scandal erupted was precisely because MPs pay had been kept down for so long they found other ways to make it pay

So being paid more means you're less likely to be open to corruption? Care to ask Sept Blatter and his cronies that?

Yes, I'd rather they'd be bribed by the public than by corporations"

So nothing to say then? Have you not heard of lobbyists? And even the great Winston Churchill was bribed. And how would 'the public' bribe politicians?

On the one hand you say they should be paid more to attract better quality into politics and make them less likely to be open to corruption, whereas you then say paying them more would mean politics ceases to be only for the rich...

So if they had money by way of a bug salary they wouldn't be open to corruption, but it's only people with money, and thus don't need a big salary, that are politicians anyway?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Makes me sick they get 70 grand a year now and want more when they keep cutting the NHS armed forces and education.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They get paid practicality nothing for the level of responsibility then we're all surprised they have lots of dodgy deals and second jobs.

They should be paid a high salary (say starting at around 1 million a year) however they should not be allowed to have any other sources of income.

no stocks or shares

No sitting on board a of directors

No consultancy business and fees

No employing their wives and families

Etc.

Their accounts should be monitors privately by the hmrc to ensure they aren't gathering outside income.

That way you pay enough to get good quality people but at the same time you cut away the opertunities for bribes and miss conduct that attract the corrupt and manipulative that we have now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)