MPs' pay

[trousers]

Possibly the most sensible article written on the subject...

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100250334/there-is-no-good-time-to-raise-mps-pay-pick-a-bad-time-and-be-done-with-it/

 

We have again managed to take the very simple process of determining whether the salaries of 650 people should rise by £7,604 a year, and turned into an outpouring of national hysteria.This is about paying MPs their wages. Not splitting the atom, or landing on the storm-tossed beaches of Normandy. We have put in place a system for calmly and dispassionately determining what our MPs should earn. It’s a system we, the voters, broadly welcomed when in what was introduced. It’s a system that works. And now it’s come up with a figure.

But instead of saying “OK, that’s what Ipsa says they should get, fair enough,” we are choosing to unleash a moral panic. And that panic has already reached such a crescendo we now have the spectacle of MPs from the Prime Minister down saying they will abolish the body that was specifically set up to stop them from determining their own pay, because they don’t like what it’s just said about their pay. This is not a mature democracy, it’s a madhouse.

The MPs' pay farrago has gone on long enough. Ipsa has made its decision. That decision is to raise MPs' wages. For God’s sake, let’s pay them and put this issue to bed once and for all.

There will never be a “good time” to raise MPs salaries. Let’s pick a bad time, and be done with it.

[Barry Sanchez]

Is it morally right and thats the issue for mp's to take and accept a 11% payrise when expect the people who elected them to accept none or at best very low increases and below the rate of inflation?

Thats what boils peoples pi ss, thats the issue.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Thing is the Govt ignored pay reviews for large sections of the public sector. Why should MPs get special treatment?

 

I think it fairly simple. They should get pay increases/decrease equal to the growth/decline in average real wages in the economy. That would focus their minds.

[Hatch]

11% rise is taking the Peees

 

But as it happens, I think MP's are underpaid massively as it is, ( most of them anyway)

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25344188

 

The body which sets MPs' salaries has defended its plan to give them an 11% pay rise, claiming this will not cost the taxpayer "a penny more" once other changes are taken into account.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) wants to raise salaries by £7,600 to £74,000 in 2015.

Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said: "We are sweeping away the out-of-date and overly generous benefits, and introducing a one-off uplift in pay. Crucially, thereafter MPs' pay will be linked to everyone else's.

"We have designed these reforms so they do not cost the taxpayer a penny more. When taken with the tens of millions we have saved by reforming the business cost and expenses regime, we have saved the taxpayer over £35m with the changes we have introduced since 2010."

[Sour Mash]

Maybe we should look to recruit cheaper, harder working politicans from Poland?

[Barry Sanchez]

11% rise is taking the Peees

 

But as it happens, I think MP's are underpaid massively as it is, ( most of them anyway)

 

I dont most use it as a wagon to lobby for coporates and thats what really feathers their nests.

[Glasgow_Saint]

Thought this was about Mauricio Pochettino

[aintforever]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25344188

 

In the spirit of austerity they should be costing the taxpayer less. What is the point of reforming the benefits if we are going to hand it back in salaries - makes no sense at all.

 

It would be interesting to see how independent Ipsa actually are, I expect they are all in bed with the MPs anyway.

[trousers]

Thought this was about Mauricio Pochettino

 

That would have been "MP's pay"...

[buctootim]

What is the point of reforming the benefits if we are going to hand it back in salaries - makes no sense at all.

 

At least it makes it open and transparent. Would it be better if their declared pay was £25,000pa but they got another £50,000 in undeclared benefits?

[trousers]

How many people criticising Ipsa now did so at the time they were set up?

[Barry Sanchez]

How many people criticising Ipsa now did so at the time they were set up?

 

Criticising IPSA is one thing but the mp's accepting it is another, is it morally right? You lead from the front.

[buctootim]

The salaries aren't unreasonable but their pensions are - 1/40th of salary for every year of service, around double that of most public service employees. In 2009 MPs salaries and pension costs were £157m for 650 MPs - around £250,000pa each.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8208590.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-128712/MPs-pensions-25.html

[trousers]

Criticising IPSA is one thing but the mp's accepting it is another

 

I would venture that the majority won't pocket the rise and those that do will be judged cometh the next election no doubt...

[aintforever]

At least it makes it open and transparent. Would it be better if their declared pay was £25,000pa but they got another £50,000 in undeclared benefits?

 

It should be transparent and save money. Otherwise how are we "all in this together"?

[Barry Sanchez]

I would venture that the majority won't pocket the rise and those that do will be judged cometh the next election no doubt...

 

No they wont, only possibly in marginals but not anywhere else.

[Barry Sanchez]

Travel, pensions, 2nd job for coporates lobbying, the recess's which are ludicrous, 2nd houses, parliamentry privilege so lets not feel too sorry for the power hungry bastards.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Possibly the most sensible article written on the subject...

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100250334/there-is-no-good-time-to-raise-mps-pay-pick-a-bad-time-and-be-done-with-it/

 

Agree with this word for word.

 

Just shows how utterly hopeless are political leaders are at present. Politics by focus group, nobody willing to have any independent thoughts and lead people. They set up an independent body to set their pay and then run scared of the public when it's set any higher than the public accept. Pathetic lack of back bone and playing to the gallery. IPSA spent hours looking at this, compared MP's pay with civil servant pay grades, foreign MP's, council leaders ect and private companies pay scales. They concluded that MP's were seriously underpaid and their pay hadn't kept up during the boom years (when they actually voted on their own pay). The funny thing is the public support an independent body setting their pay, yet don't seem grown up enough to accept what their recommendation is. I have no idea what we should be paying MP's, I would have thought it's best to leave that to independent experts.

[Barry Sanchez]

Agree with this word for word.

 

Just shows how utterly hopeless are political leaders are at present. Politics by focus group, nobody willing to have any independent thoughts and lead people. They set up an independent body to set their pay and then run scared of the public when it's set any higher than the public accept. Pathetic lack of back bone and playing to the gallery. IPSA spent hours looking at this, compared MP's pay with civil servant pay grades, foreign MP's, council leaders ect and private companies pay scales. They concluded that MP's were seriously underpaid and their pay hadn't kept up during the boom years (when they actually voted on their own pay). The funny thing is the public support an independent body setting their pay, yet don't seem grown up enough to accept what their recommendation is. I have no idea what we should be paying MP's, I would have thought it's best to leave that to independent experts.

 

Their cavaet is they can not take into account the possibility of extra work which they all do do. Its a public service, they shouldn't moonlight whilst working for and representing the people.

[Hedgehog]

Try telling a nurse, a teacher, police officer fireman etc. that this should be accepted!

They have had pay freezes, re bandings down and put on lower salaries, have had their pension contributions increased (they aren't given these pensions for nothing), expected to work longer to get said pension.

This is not the time for MPs to be treated better. These other public servants too would welcome an extra £7k a year.

[Minsk]

An 11% increase for the MPs is fine by me, so long as the armed forces get at least double that.

[bridge too far]

I understand that they won't be that much better off as they'll lose a lot of the benefits (they'll pay more for their pensions and won't get a lump sum if they lose their seat) and they'll be more accountable to their constituents - according to this article

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25344188

 

I would be concerned if being an MP became a prerogative of the independently wealthy and therefore unrepresentative of the general population but I do think it's incredibly bad timing ATM.

[Batman]

An 11% increase for the MPs is fine by me, so long as the armed forces get at least double that.

 

I would not say no

but you rarely here from a member of the armed forces complaining about pay.

 

Personally, i think MPs are massively under paid as it is

[solentstars]

In the spirit of austerity they should be costing the taxpayer less. What is the point of reforming the benefits if we are going to hand it back in salaries - makes no sense at all.

 

It would be interesting to see how independent Ipsa actually are, I expect they are all in bed with the MPs anyway.

i agree they are well paid anyway and don,t forget they have alot of add ons,the original idea was to go into public service to make this country a better place and not about the money.if they are not happy i suggest they stand down has there are alot of people happy to have there wages.they need to get rid of half the mps and the lords for a starter.at the end of the day they are spokespersons for the big business and defence industry s and bankers elites.

[whelk]

I would be concerned if being an MP became a prerogative of the independently wealthy and therefore unrepresentative of the general population but I do think it's incredibly bad timing ATM.

 

Exactly. Smug fckers like Cameron, Milliband and Clegg can all afford to make noble gestures as wealthy anyway but just PR and no affinity to the common man.

[aintforever]

Agree with this word for word.

 

Just shows how utterly hopeless are political leaders are at present. Politics by focus group, nobody willing to have any independent thoughts and lead people. They set up an independent body to set their pay and then run scared of the public when it's set any higher than the public accept. Pathetic lack of back bone and playing to the gallery. IPSA spent hours looking at this, compared MP's pay with civil servant pay grades, foreign MP's, council leaders ect and private companies pay scales. They concluded that MP's were seriously underpaid and their pay hadn't kept up during the boom years (when they actually voted on their own pay). The funny thing is the public support an independent body setting their pay, yet don't seem grown up enough to accept what their recommendation is. I have no idea what we should be paying MP's, I would have thought it's best to leave that to independent experts.

 

The only lack of backbone is the MP's not having the balls to tell the so called experts that the obscene pay rise is not appropriate because for the last few years theywe have gone round telling the public "we are in this together" whilst making cuts all over the place.

 

How about we save a bit of cash, put the IPSA on the dole and just link MP's pay to other public sector pay. If teachers and nurses get 1%, MPs get 1% - sounds fair to me.

[Smirking_Saint]

They perform in one of the highest jobs in the country, personally I have no real issue for their earnings, the expense fiasco took the **** but this isnt too bad

[solentstars]

cross-party Commons Standards Committee said it was "hard to believe" that Ms nadine Dorries would have been asked to take part in the show if she were not an MP, and therefore the earnings were linked to her role in parliament."Payments directly made for services should be registered whether or not they are made to a third party," the committee observed.

Ms Dorries was ordered to register the details required by the rules, with the committee also criticising her "attitude toward the Commissioner's inquiry".

 

The MP updated her entry on the register of MP's interests in October for the previous year, with Averbrook showing a gross income of £142,000 and a profit of £82,000. Ms Dorries took a £10,000 dividend at the end of last month.

She spent about 60 DAYS working on projects, for the company under the heading of “writing and media appearances”.

 

[h=3]Employment of family members[/h] Dorries' daughter was among the highest earning family members employed by MPs with a salary of £40,000-45,000 as an office manager. Subsequently her sister was taken on as senior secretary with a salary of £30,000-35.000.

just another perk of the job.

[LGTL]

I look forward to my 11% pay rise, as we are all in this together. Or is that only when it suits?

[Batman]

I look forward to my 11% pay rise, as we are all in this together. Or is that only when it suits?

I would think that MPs are horrifically under paid from the off.

who would want to do that job for that money

[CB Saint]

I would think that MPs are horrifically under paid from the off.

who would want to do that job for that money

 

this. Dump the final salary scheme give them £100k pa and a 10% contribution to money purchase pensions. Stop the practice of employing family as staff.

 

job done

[Hedgehog]

I would think that MPs are horrifically under paid from the off.

who would want to do that job for that money

What exactly does an MP do? How does he help society with his role. Sometimes you see the House of Commons on TV and no one is there, if that was an A+E department with half the staff missing because they don't feel the need to attend then there would be deaths etc.

I don't remember anything that an MP has done that has made a difference. None of them seem to represent the people that put them there, and if the pay is so bad why do it.

[Tamesaint]

I would think that MPs are horrifically under paid from the off.

who would want to do that job for that money

 

I think that you will find that at the next General Election there will be several people in each constituency who want the MP's job!!

 

Mind you, I agree fully with what you are saying. I agree that MPs are very under paid.

[Batman]

I think that you will find that at the next General Election there will be several people in each constituency who want the MP's job!!

 

Mind you, I agree fully with what you are saying. I agree that MPs are very under paid.

 

but are those people any good?

we get what we pay for.

 

it says something when about 10,000 people are paid more by the state than what the Prime Minister gets

granted, the costs of being PM are probably high (security, travel etc) but so it should be.

[Tamesaint]

but are those people any good?

we get what we pay for.

 

it says something when about 10,000 people are paid more by the state than what the Prime Minister gets

granted, the costs of being PM are probably high (security, travel etc) but so it should be.

 

I agree . Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. £68k or whatever they currently get paid is not necessarily peanuts but top people can earn much more than that so why would they want to enter politics?

[Gemmel]

Triple their wages and then double it (Seriously) and then stop them having any other business interests, being paid to lobby parliament, scrap the quangos and then we are done.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree . Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. £68k or whatever they currently get paid is not necessarily peanuts but top people can earn much more than that so why would they want to enter politics?

 

Pay more peanuts and you get bigger monkeys. Or should that be apes?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The only lack of backbone is the MP's not having the balls to tell the so called experts that the obscene pay rise is not appropriate because for the last few years theywe have gone round telling the public "we are in this together" whilst making cuts all over the place.

 

How about we save a bit of cash, put the IPSA on the dole and just link MP's pay to other public sector pay. If teachers and nurses get 1%, MPs get 1% - sounds fair to me.

 

That only works if the MP's pay was set at the right level in the first place. It lagged behind other public sector comparable pay for many years. This was because it was political suicide for them to be voting through pay increases. The way they found round it was to keep pay down, but expenses up. This nod and a wink policy went on for years until the daily telegraph exposed it. The cry was then for a transparent independent body to regulate pay. All of a sudden because people don't like what this independent body recommended, they want it both ways. If IPSA recommended a pay freeze people would think it wonderful.

 

All this BBC questioning of "will you take it" is doing nobody any good. You can not run a political system and constituency based elections based on whether people will take the pay, or how much they donate to charity. You'll end up with the rich being able to promise down their salary , and also discourage people like doctors, head teachers and businessmen from standing.

 

What better way is there for MP's salaries to be decided than an independent body setting it after a long period of research? An x factor type phone in? Voting for it themselves? Having rich party leaders decide?

[Viking Warrior]

I would like to see the whole package before commenting on this rise as it is cost neutral . It's all well and good the outraged gobbling off . What are they earning . trade union leaders are earning far mor than that with better perks . MPs do have long hours etc so the question I ask is what is there hourly salary if you average out the hours they actually work .

Let the media get down to the nitty gritty of the facts instead of playing with headline grabbing figures . In isolation 11% is obscene . But let's see the real facts

[Patrick Bateman]

I understand that they won't be that much better off as they'll lose a lot of the benefits (they'll pay more for their pensions and won't get a lump sum if they lose their seat) and they'll be more accountable to their constituents - according to this article

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25344188

 

I would be concerned if being an MP became a prerogative of the independently wealthy and therefore unrepresentative of the general population but I do think it's incredibly bad timing ATM.

 

Exactly right. They will lose a lot of benefit; here is a high-level view; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24613217

 

They will be losing benefits for things that are frankly ridiculous to claim for, so giving them extra money and making them choose what they pay for rather than take all that for granted (which no else in the country is able to do) is a good thing. It might make them more accountable and realise how out of touch their benefits really are.

 

In defence; if this was any other industry having their benefits shaken up so much, they'd on strike! I also feel that MPs are actually underpaid for the job they do - especially when most of us travelling in to work every day in the private sector earn more for far less "social responsibility".

[Barry Sanchez]

I would think that MPs are horrifically under paid from the off.

who would want to do that job for that money

 

You are taking the urine right? You do know what an mp does?

[trousers]

You are taking the urine right? You do know what an mp does?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/dec/13/parliament-careers-working-life-mp-jobs

[Barry Sanchez]

I would like to see the whole package before commenting on this rise as it is cost neutral . It's all well and good the outraged gobbling off . What are they earning . trade union leaders are earning far mor than that with better perks . MPs do have long hours etc so the question I ask is what is there hourly salary if you average out the hours they actually work .

Let the media get down to the nitty gritty of the facts instead of playing with headline grabbing figures . In isolation 11% is obscene . But let's see the real facts

 

 

 

The facts remain they can claim an awful lot more than they are supposed to, they lobby and sit on boards of corporates and make huge amounts using their status to earn an awful lot of money.

Pray tell what better conditions over an mp does a Union leader have? Better pay yes but what else?

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/dec/13/parliament-careers-working-life-mp-jobs

 

And what? Another ppe graduate travels to London to right the wrongs of a right wing Government shocker......................

[trousers]

And what? Another ppe graduate travels to London to right the wrongs of a right wing Government shocker......................

 

[buctootim]

They can claim an awful lot more than they are supposed to, they lobby and sit on boards of corporates and make huge amounts using their status to earn an awful lot of money.

 

Correction: Some do. Some MPs work very little and prioritise paid for lobbying work over constituents problems. Others give their life and soul to it sacrificing family life for better or worse. Those in marginal constituencies probably work and try harder than those in safe seats - but its the safe seats MPs that get returned election after election.

[Viking Warrior]

Which Union leader would you like me to refer to Barry

 

King Arthur

Bob Crowe

Mcluskey

Etc Etc

 

They get over 100K plus add ons

[Viking Warrior]

Bob Crow has said he has ‘no moral duty’ to move out of his council house – despite earning £145,000 in salary and expenses.

 

So the rich like crow live in a council house, yet others have to sleep in cardboard boxes or sheltetered houses.

 

I know the same applies to the mega rich but crow is meant to advocate on behalf of all low paid people

and therefore should set an example. and allow someone else who is more deserving to live in social housing

[Barry Sanchez]

Correction: Some do. Some MPs work very little and prioritise paid for lobbying work over constituents problems. Others give their life and soul to it sacrificing family life for better or worse. Those in marginal constituencies probably work and try harder than those in safe seats - but its the safe seats MPs that get returned election after election.

 

Do you believe you have ever got good value from them?