I think the argument before was something about more pay for less allowable expenses, how they can't survive on their current pay without expenses baffles me.
At least one pollie has said he will be giving his pay rise away; I do hope we see proof of that.
Having just listened to Radio 4, it seems that the body has awarded the pay rise, but taken away some of the pension benefits and also the lump sums that MPs get when they lose their seat. Allegedly the package is "cost neutral". If it is, fine... but I can understand why people woukd be upset as some have had no pay rise AND lost pension benefits!
MPs lost the right to set their own pay after the expenses scandal and, to stop them interfering, the whole decision was handed over to this committee by law. An MP's salary is under £70k per year and most of them maintain two homes. One in their constituency where their family live (and they would soon lose their seat if they didn't) and then they end up having to rent a flat in London as well so that they can work there.; their hours often go on long after public transport has stopped for the night. It doesn't leave much money to play with, so to some extent I have sympathies with them... which actually amazes me, because I hadn't expected to think like that.
Representing your constituency is a privilege.
They tell us that austerity is going to last for years to come, but are set to enjoy a pay rise. This at the same time of freezing public sector pay, hitting societies most vulnerable with the bedroom tax and forcing disabled people back to work.
Old people WILL die this winter unable to afford heating while MP's stuff their pockets.
We're all in it together... unless you're an MP.
And they won't if their pay doesn't allow them to maintain their family. Like it not, somebody has to run the country. Personally, I would rather that it wasn't just nutters doing it for a laugh and that some professionally qualified people felt that they could afford to stand for election. I agree there are some professionally qualified nutters that have been elected, but they are not all bad.
£66K/Annum will attract a lot of people don't need 70+!Quote:
What I'm concerned about is to ensure that the pay is sufficient to attract people from modest backgrounds who have not inherited a house, who don't have family or personal income, but who are going to make a career out of politics," he said.
They would be better off not being MPs and carrying on as accountants, lawyers, headteachers, or whatever... or even IT Managers in industry. Take a look at the pay scales for your teachers. Many of you will have SLT being paid that sort of money and more! I know the salaries, exactly, of 3 headteachers and they are all earning more than an MP. These guys are running the country, I would rather have some professionals doing it... not none at all.
And they will choose not to stand for election if their pay stays at £66k forever. It does have to go up at some time. This pay rise is badly thought out and badly publicised, but it does go some way to reduce the ridiculous perks and pensions they get. An MP who lasts a long time in parliament could retire on more than he/she earns at present. That is being removed.
I don't like an 11% pay rise, but if it is genuinely cost neutral (and it will come out whether or not it actually is) then I am glad as it make their pay transparent and understandable; there are too many hidden benefits at the moment which is why this whole deal looks so bad. Personally, I do think it should have been phased over several years... it would never be right to award 11%.
I agree with the pay rise maybe not the best timing but as the saying goes if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. If MP's were paid decent wages maybe we would get decent and the right people running the country.
Councils pay vast sums of money to senior staff.
Some Civil Servants are vast Sums of money.
As Elsiegee40 has mentioned many more professions.
Some of these especially Ministers run Departments with Billions of pounds in budgets and possibly if a reasonable wage was paid we would attract the right people and this country wouldn't be in the mess it is in. Instead of attracting inadequate people who are incapable of doing the a good job.
Yes of course they can. But could any of the people you mention afford to have a family home in their constituency and live and work in London?Quote:
Can A street sweeper, a fruit and veg woman, a toilet attendant or farm worker not also aspaire to be part of our democtatic system and be elected by their comunity?
If you don't give MPs a sensibly high wage all you will end up with is wealthy people doing the job, the ones who can afford to use their MP salary as pocket money... there is too high a proportion of them now.
It's frustrating that they've been awarded a massively above inflation pay rise when most of the public are lucky to have received any kind of pay rise but at the same time I appreciate the need to pay MP's a fair wage for amount of effort they put in. If you take the approach that we shouldn't pay them anything you'll end up with an even more corrupt bunch in charge who are only working for the highest bidder or their own self interest.
Most of the management in our schools are probably on similar money so IMO an MP's pay check isn't excessive given the level of responsibility and duties. Especially given that many of the them will be highly qualified individuals who will probably be taking a pay cut to work as an MP!
The 11% figure being banded around is just a Daily Mail style headline grabber as far as I'm concerned. A front bench of multi-millionaires aren't going to care about a few thousand extra in their pay packet at the end of the year! There are far more important issues in politics we should be worried about rather than whether we pay 650 people a couple of grand extra a year!
This is an interesting page where you can look up what your (or any) MP has claimed
MPs' expenses 2012/13: find out how much every member of parliament claimed for accommodation, travel and more | News | theguardian.com