You couldn't make this up could you.....we're all in this together.

[mattx]

BBC News - MPs' pay: Politicians criticise 'inappropriate' 11% rise

[kernewek-sam]

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.

[unixman_again]

At least one pollie has said he will be giving his pay rise away; I do hope we see proof of that.

[elsiegee40]

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.

[mattx]

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.

 

I have an easy answer to that - DON'T DO THE JOB THEN.

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.

Edited December 8, 2013 by mattx

[elsiegee40]

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.

[twin--turbo]

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.

 

£66K/Annum will attract a lot of people don't need 70+!

 

Rob

[Roberto]

I have an easy answer to that - DON'T DO THE JOB THEN.

 

So you're saying that only the people rich enough to afford to be able to do the job of an MP regardless of salary should be doing it? After all, if those people who can't afford to do it without a decent pay level don't do the job then that's all that's left...

[elsiegee40]

£66K/Annum will attract a lot of people don't need 70+!

 

Rob

People who have to have a family home in a constituency and then also rent a flat at an exorbitant close to London rent? Property is not cheap in and around London. They won't have much money left.

 

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%.

Edited December 8, 2013 by elsiegee40

[Steven_Cleaver]

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.

[twin--turbo]

They would be better off not being MPs and carrying on as accountants, lawyers, headteachers, or whatever... or even IT Managers in industry.

 

Why do you imagine that an MP will come from one of these backgrounds?

 

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?

 

Rob

[Roberto]

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?

 

Of course they can. But they need to be able to afford to take up the post, right?

[elsiegee40]

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?

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?

 

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.

Edited December 8, 2013 by elsiegee40

[flyinghaggis]

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.

 

This +1 TBH

 

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!

Edited December 8, 2013 by flyinghaggis

[SpuffMonkey]

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.

 

While I agree with your sentiments - the cost of their second home is borne by expenses payments rather than wages, as is their travel and other bits

 

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

[mattx]

Another easy solution to 'MPs Second Homes' is to simply use the current spate of unused office blocks around London. Either that or build something for them - that way they won't have to worry about where they are going to live etc.

I bet if that happened you would see over half of them not bothering to stand again......

[pcstru]

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.

MP's second homes are paid for from expenses. They don't even pay their own heating bills (while simultaneously telling us all to "put another jumper on"). Seems it's also the richest who claim the most. Still, MP's do need to run their offices for the benefit of their constituents and it's nice if you can give your offspring £75,000 a year to skivvy for you.

[Roberto]

Another easy solution to 'MPs Second Homes' is to simply use the current spate of unused office blocks around London. Either that or build something for them - that way they won't have to worry about where they are going to live etc.

I bet if that happened you would see over half of them not bothering to stand again......

 

Again, making the job as awful as possible, which is what you appear to be aiming for, is not going to improve the quality of the people doing the job. If you're fed up with the current lot of politicians from all parties as I am that's fine, but setting out to make the job conditions worse hardly seems like the best way to improve the quality of the people taking the job...

[localzuk]

Again, making the job as awful as possible, which is what you appear to be aiming for, is not going to improve the quality of the people doing the job. If you're fed up with the current lot of politicians from all parties as I am that's fine, but setting out to make the job conditions worse hardly seems like the best way to improve the quality of the people taking the job...

 

How does making good accommodation available make the job worse? In most jobs, when you have to stay overnight, the company organises a hotel. That hotel is most of the time a cheap one - Ibis, Holiday Inn etc... Not the Ritz.

 

There's no reason such accommodation can't be nice. There's only 650 MPs.

 

I'm a fan of the idea of putting MP pay up to £100k, and scrapping *all* allowances.

 

Pay rises should be an average of the country's pay increases. If the average pay increase is 1%, they get 1%. If the average pay falls by 1%, their pay falls by 1%.

 

MPs should not be treated differently simply because they are in 'power'.

[tmcd35]

MP's second homes are paid for from expenses. They don't even pay their own heating bills (while simultaneously telling us all to "put another jumper on"). Seems it's also the richest who claim the most.

 

Forgive my ignorance, not read too closely into the issue, but isn't the thrust of @elsiegee40's arguements that these expenses are being stopped in favour of an 11% pay rise?

[elsiegee40]

Forgive my ignorance, not read too closely into the issue, but isn't the thrust of @elsiegee40's arguements that these expenses are being stopped in favour of an 11% pay rise?

 

As I understand it, there is a whole raft of reform going on around expenses and especially pensions that go with this. Once the shock-horror dies back a little, maybe we will actually get some clarity on that. If they are getting 11% with nothing else to balance it, I am with Mattx... !

 

I stand by my belief that MP salaries must be allowed to rise so that anyone can afford to be an MP and not just those who already have money.

[sted]

as to the second homes argument why cant the govenment build a "hostel" (for want of better word) for mps to live in so one building its paid for directly so no chance of overpaying to relatives etc

[Andrew_C]

If they are getting 11% with nothing else to balance it, I am with Guy Faulks !

There, fixed that for you!

 

 

I too would go for a "Hostel", a nice one mind. Lots of 2 bed apartments, fully serviced, for those who have exta-London constituencies. I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to give up high paying jobs, to represent us, without recompensing them properly.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Andrew_C

[pcstru]

Forgive my ignorance, not read too closely into the issue, but isn't the thrust of @elsiegee40's arguements that these expenses are being stopped in favour of an 11% pay rise?

No. The pay rise is supposedly 'balanced' by pension reform and adjustment of resettlement grant (the payoff MP's receive when they leave the job) which varies between 50% and 100% of their annual salary.

[SteveBentley]

I too would go for a "Hostel", a nice one mind. Lots of 2 bed apartments, fully serviced, for those who have exta-London constituencies.

 

By "fully serviced" you would include the massive security bill that such a place would require? Surely it would be a prime target for those planning terrorist activities.