MPs' pay

[Viking Warrior]

Barry

 

this from the press in 2012

 

 

 

Len McCluskey gets £149,312 a year, made up of a salary of £97,677 plus £51,635 in benefits.

 

NUT boss Christine Blowergets £144,656 a year and National Association of Head Teachers leader Russell Hobby pockets £142,873.

 

Seven other Union Robber Barons get salary and benefits packages in excess of £120,000, including RMT firebrand Bob Crow

 

So in comparison the Rank and File MP's are poorly paid

[Barry Sanchez]

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

 

I agree with you on that, I have spoken about this and he says why should he disrupt his children and family life, which is a fair comment but I still dont agree with the principle.

 

Poor example though as a council/housing scheme house is not a bonus of his position so try again.

[Barry Sanchez]

Barry

 

this from the press in 2012

 

 

 

Len McCluskey gets £149,312 a year, made up of a salary of £97,677 plus £51,635 in benefits.

 

NUT boss Christine Blowergets £144,656 a year and National Association of Head Teachers leader Russell Hobby pockets £142,873.

 

Seven other Union Robber Barons get salary and benefits packages in excess of £120,000, including RMT firebrand Bob Crow

 

So in comparison the Rank and File MP's are poorly paid

 

Sorry what is your point? We know this, mp's make their money up by lobbying and moonlighting, they get £100,000's for this.

The benefit package is pension and conditions of raising the membership which Crow has.

Edited 13 December, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[buctootim]

Len McCluskey gets £149,312 a year, made up of a salary of £97,677 plus £51,635 in benefits.

 

NUT boss Christine Blowergets £144,656 a year and National Association of Head Teachers leader Russell Hobby pockets £142,873.

 

Seven other Union Robber Barons get salary and benefits packages in excess of £120,000, including RMT firebrand Bob Crow

 

So in comparison the Rank and File MP's are poorly paid

 

Thats not a valid comparison. Large unions have over 1 million members and (probably) thousands of staff and reps. £140,000pa isnt that much for the size and responsibility of the CEO's job. There are 650 MPs each responsible for a couple of staff and voting how they are told to. Somewhere around £75,000 pa feels about right to me.

[Barry Sanchez]

The Union basher's simply quote the sun and the mail and think its all bang on, like those rags have never lied or exaggerated.

[Viking Warrior]

You miss the point Barry not I

 

Yes some MP's are on various boards etc but the majority are

 

If you look at the rank and file MP's then you will find it there only income

 

but compared to the Union boys they are poorly paid,

 

AS for crows council . I think it is wrong. He will not be paying a rent commensurate with his salary or rental in the private housing sector

also the council will be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the property . To me that is obscene

 

My main point is you cannot tarnish one group of employees with out looking at those that are throwing the stones, and that includes media bosses, Uinons and some more vocal activists whether unions jo bloggs or some MP's

 

Remenber I dont agree with the 11% if it is across the board that is unfair.

 

Must go and spend my £23 Back pay I have just recieved in my pay for my backdated .65% increase

[Barry Sanchez]

You miss the point Barry not I

 

Yes some MP's are on various boards etc but the majority are

 

If you look at the rank and file MP's then you will find it there only income

 

but compared to the Union boys they are poorly paid,

 

AS for crows council . I think it is wrong. He will not be paying a rent commensurate with his salary or rental in the private housing sector

also the council will be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the property . To me that is obscene

 

My main point is you cannot tarnish one group of employees with out looking at those that are throwing the stones, and that includes media bosses, Uinons and some more vocal activists whether unions jo bloggs or some MP's

 

Remenber I dont agree with the 11% if it is across the board that is unfair.

 

Must go and spend my £23 Back pay I have just recieved in my pay for my backdated .65% increase

 

I have agreed with you on the situation with Crow, you are comparing public service with very very favourable rules in your favour against a Union with is self funding and can pay what it wants, nearly all mp's will have a company/institution they are alligned to which gives them money or perks.

How much do they pay again on homes? Travel? Their pension is second to none, you look at pay, I look at conditions of service, they are the real thing to look for.

[bridge too far]

I think it might help if some people re-read the link that Trousers posted. Here it is again:

 

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

 

It's worth remembering that MPs have two jobs in effect - as representatives / committee members in the HoC and as constituent MPs holding surgeries in their constituencies. Most people who have 2 places of work for one employer get their travel expenses paid and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case for MPs.

 

I remember fondly that dear old Dennis Skinner claimed the least amount in expenses, however and hasn't missed a single sitting of the Commons.

[Barry Sanchez]

I think it might help if some people re-read the link that Trousers posted. Here it is again:

 

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

 

It's worth remembering that MPs have two jobs in effect - as representatives / committee members in the HoC and as constituent MPs holding surgeries in their constituencies. Most people who have 2 places of work for one employer get their travel expenses paid and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case for MPs.

 

I remember fondly that dear old Dennis Skinner claimed the least amount in expenses, however and hasn't missed a single sitting of the Commons.

 

 

Like all the Lords strolling up everyday and getting their pay.

[buctootim]

Like all the Lords strolling up everyday and getting their pay.

 

What exactly is it that you're *****ing about Barry? That government costs money? anarchy is cheaper? Parliament costs about £500m pa, around 0.038% of GDP. I'd rather we paid MPs reasonably well and reimbursed legitimate expenses - as is being proposed - rather than the current system.

Edited 13 December, 2013 by buctootim

[Barry Sanchez]

What exactly is it that you're *****ing about Barry? That government costs money? anarchy is cheaper? Parliament costs about £500m pa, around 0.038% of GDP. I'd rather we paid MPs reasonably well and reimbursed legitimate expenses - as is being proposed - rather than the current system.

 

I refer to the house of Lords...........................Christ alive.

[Saintandy666]

MPs do a very difficult and highly skilled job that the majority of people in this country would probably not be capable of doing. It carries huge responsibilities and pay should reflect that. In my opinion, they are currently hugely underpaid given the importance of their job. Just pay them 100k a year to reflect that and be done with it.

[Barry Sanchez]

MPs do a very difficult and highly skilled job that the majority of people in this country would probably not be capable of doing. It carries huge responsibilities and pay should reflect that. In my opinion, they are currently hugely underpaid given the importance of their job. Just pay them 100k a year to reflect that and be done with it.

 

And be done with it, what does that mean exactly? That it means they can not lobby? I'll tell you now they get £1000's a year from that, their expenses and "other" activities cover everything very well indeed trust me.

[Whitey Grandad]

And be done with it, what does that mean exactly? That it means they can not lobby? I'll tell you now they get £1000's a year from that, their expenses and "other" activities cover everything very well indeed trust me.

 

Quite so. There is no shortage of applicants so the pay must be adequate.

[Barry Sanchez]

Quite so. There is no shortage of applicants so the pay must be adequate.

 

A good friend of my wifes is an economist at the moment and has worked for the Labour Party before in some capacity and assures me it is one cushy ride in a safe seat.

[Viking Warrior]

Barry something I agree with you on is the terms and conditions of service.

 

I did mention in an earlier post about looking at the detail of their package.

 

I have folk who are on a lot less base salary than me , I work long long hours, but when I see all the add ons they get for doing less hours etc they take home far more than me

 

 

The devil is in the detail my learned friend

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bazza, you are letting your preconceived opinions of mp's get in the way of reason. Just because there maybe lazy mp's or mp's taking the Michael does not mean there cant be a way of paying them fairly and without emotions. There are only really 2 options, parliament sets the pay, or an independent body does. That is the bottom line. Had the independent body called for a 20K pay cut I've no doubt that you would have been happy with that, but it doesn't alter the fact that somebody other than mp's or the public or your goodself set that salary. Whether mp's are any good or not is irrelevant, unless you have performance related pay (and god knows how you'd appraise that). If enough people agree with your assessment of their mp, or are unhappy with him/her, they'll lose their seat. In exactly the same way Bob Crow is elected by his membership its not for a Tory or media to dictate what he should earn or where he should live. If his voters think he's taking the Mick, they'll get rid.

[Whitey Grandad]

How independent is this independent body?

[Barry Sanchez]

How independent is this independent body?

 

About the same as the media in North Korea.................................

[trousers]

How independent is this independent body?

 

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/About%20Us/Pages/Board-members-and-chief-executive.aspx

[Barry Sanchez]

Bazza, you are letting your preconceived opinions of mp's get in the way of reason. Just because there maybe lazy mp's or mp's taking the Michael does not mean there cant be a way of paying them fairly and without emotions. There are only really 2 options, parliament sets the pay, or an independent body does. That is the bottom line. Had the independent body called for a 20K pay cut I've no doubt that you would have been happy with that, but it doesn't alter the fact that somebody other than mp's or the public or your goodself set that salary. Whether mp's are any good or not is irrelevant, unless you have performance related pay (and god knows how you'd appraise that). If enough people agree with your assessment of their mp, or are unhappy with him/her, they'll lose their seat. In exactly the same way Bob Crow is elected by his membership its not for a Tory or media to dictate what he should earn or where he should live. If his voters think he's taking the Mick, they'll get rid.

 

 

With respect no I'm not letting my thoughts runaway with me, they are nearly all from the same background now so they are all peas from the same pod with a twist here and there, in a safe seat they will only lose their seat to another party member put up by the selection committee or an independent for 5 years now. A marginal will always be a marginal so the next election will be lost in that seats yes, the Lords in the house of Lords can go to prison and return to the position, it has to be the most corrupt place in the whole World.

 

Trust died a long time ago as far as politicians go, all ppe Oxbridge/LSE graduates with no real grasp of the people telling us how to live, we are going backwards.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/About%20Us/Pages/Board-members-and-chief-executive.aspx

 

As I thought. Just the six of them? They all scratch each other's backs. Have you seen the size of their salaries? These people don't live in the real world. I certainly wouldn't call them independent.

[Saintandy666]

And be done with it, what does that mean exactly? That it means they can not lobby? I'll tell you now they get £1000's a year from that, their expenses and "other" activities cover everything very well indeed trust me.

 

By that I mean there is no good time in much of the media and public's eyes for a pay rise, so just get on with it because our MPs are underpaid given the importance of their jobs. And yes, some of them do have earnings from elsewhere, but that's irrelevant to their pay for doing the job of being a member of parliament.

[Barry Sanchez]

By that I mean there is no good time in much of the media and public's eyes for a pay rise, so just get on with it because our MPs are underpaid given the importance of their jobs. And yes, some of them do have earnings from elsewhere, but that's irrelevant to their pay for doing the job of being a member of parliament.

 

If you think its irrelevant then I suggest to you a vested interest they would have, they would not even handed, it happens all the time.

[Saintandy666]

If you think its irrelevant then I suggest to you a vested interest they would have, they would not even handed, it happens all the time.

 

Something in the structure of that sentence doesn't quite make sense to me, but I think I get what you are saying.

 

How about a compromise? Ban third-party income, but pay MPs a wage that actually reflects their responsibility and skill-set as an MP. How do you feel about that?

[Barry Sanchez]

Something in the structure of that sentence doesn't quite make sense to me, but I think I get what you are saying.

 

How about a compromise? Ban third-party income, but pay MPs a wage that actually reflects their responsibility and skill-set as an MP. How do you feel about that?

 

Sorry was writing whilst looking after my baby, mp's will be easily compromised and they are in this situation, if there was no 3rd party income you would not get mp's that I will guarantee you, thats where their money is. Its a disgrace.

[buctootim]

As I thought. Just the six of them? They all scratch each other's backs. Have you seen the size of their salaries? These people don't live in the real world. I certainly wouldn't call them independent.

 

Seem like a decent spread to me. If you saw the Chairman's CV under other circumstances you'd be deriding him as an LSE loony left.

[bridge too far]

Sorry was writing whilst looking after my baby, mp's will be easily compromised and they are in this situation, if there was no 3rd party income you would not get mp's that I will guarantee you, thats where their money is. Its a disgrace.

 

Rather than sweeping generalisations, why not have a look at the facts from here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/27/mps-jobs-interests-full-list-data

 

Analysis by the Guardian reveals 20 MPs made more money from their outside jobs than they did from their Parliamentary salary, with some spending more than 1,000 hours engaging in outside employment. Of those, 17 declared more than £100,000 in income ...

In total, Conservative MPs declared more than £4.3m in earnings from outside directorships or jobs, versus £2.4m (including Gordon Brown's £1.36m) for Labour. More than 50 MPs had directorships of at least one company, while 295 declared at least some kind of minimal earnings from outside work.

[Batman]

Rather than sweeping generalisations, why not have a look at the facts from here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/27/mps-jobs-interests-full-list-data

 

Analysis by the Guardian reveals 20 MPs made more money from their outside jobs than they did from their Parliamentary salary, with some spending more than 1,000 hours engaging in outside employment. Of those, 17 declared more than £100,000 in income ...

In total, Conservative MPs declared more than £4.3m in earnings from outside directorships or jobs, versus £2.4m (including Gordon Brown's £1.36m) for Labour. More than 50 MPs had directorships of at least one company, while 295 declared at least some kind of minimal earnings from outside work.

so what if they make more money outside of being an MP

 

When I rented a 2nd property out, I never had my pay cut because of it

[bridge too far]

so what if they make more money outside of being an MP

 

When I rented a 2nd property out, I never had my pay cut because of it

 

 

I was trying to suggest that Barry Sanchez looked at some information - I wasn't arguing one way or another

 

But your argument is frivolous. You need to compare like with like. Your employers would be happy with you working at McDonalds when you weren't cooking up a storm in your sub, would they?

[Whitey Grandad]

so what if they make more money outside of being an MP

 

When I rented a 2nd property out, I never had my pay cut because of it

 

But their second properties are paid for by the taxpayer.

[Wade Garrett]

You miss the point Barry not I

 

Yes some MP's are on various boards etc but the majority are

 

If you look at the rank and file MP's then you will find it there only income

 

but compared to the Union boys they are poorly paid,

 

AS for crows council . I think it is wrong. He will not be paying a rent commensurate with his salary or rental in the private housing sector

also the council will be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the property . To me that is obscene

 

My main point is you cannot tarnish one group of employees with out looking at those that are throwing the stones, and that includes media bosses, Uinons and some more vocal activists whether unions jo bloggs or some MP's

 

Remenber I dont agree with the 11% if it is across the board that is unfair.

 

Must go and spend my £23 Back pay I have just recieved in my pay for my backdated .65% increase

 

 

I don't understand why you are comparing Union leaders to MPs.

 

Union leaders salaries aren't financed by the taxpayer, MPs are.

 

How can they get such a big rise from the public purse, when millions of other state workers aren't?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Outside interests should be a positive influence on the House of Commons assuming there is no conflict of interests. The idea of 'professional' politicians is a very unpalatable one, we should be trying to discourage 'career' politicians who come in straight from University and have no experience or understanding of the outside world.

[Saintandy666]

Sorry was writing whilst looking after my baby, mp's will be easily compromised and they are in this situation, if there was no 3rd party income you would not get mp's that I will guarantee you, thats where their money is. Its a disgrace.

 

I think you are wrong about MPs. I really don't think they are driven by money... why would you become an MP if you were?! The danger of underpaying an MP though and tightening expenses too far the other way is that you will restrict the pool from which we get our MPs even further.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think you are wrong about MPs. I really don't think they are driven by money... why would you become an MP if you were?! The danger of underpaying an MP though and tightening expenses too far the other way is that you will restrict the pool from which we get our MPs even further.

 

Clearly the expenses scandal highlights that they are motivated by money. Lets welcome in a period when MP's are motivated by a sense of duty attracting successful people who want to put something back.

[Barry Sanchez]

Outside interests should be a positive influence on the House of Commons assuming there is no conflict of interests. The idea of 'professional' politicians is a very unpalatable one, we should be trying to discourage 'career' politicians who come in straight from University and have no experience or understanding of the outside world.

 

But there is a huge conflict of interest, its biased for a start and someone mentioned about declared earnings, they are declared and I am under no doubt that a considerable amount goes undected.

[Barry Sanchez]

I think you are wrong about MPs. I really don't think they are driven by money... why would you become an MP if you were?! The danger of underpaying an MP though and tightening expenses too far the other way is that you will restrict the pool from which we get our MPs even further.

 

Maybe they should be driven by a sense of public sevice, there is no danger of underpaying an mp come on they set the rules and put the laws in motion to be passed, crudely put they are their own bosses.

[Saintandy666]

Clearly the expenses scandal highlights that they are motivated by money. Lets welcome in a period when MP's are motivated by a sense of duty attracting successful people who want to put something back.

 

To some degree, some let it go. Though the expenses scandal wasn't every MP. And you also have the factor that such claiming was encouraged by the system as a way of topping up their wages which I think most people should admit are low given their responsibilities.

[buctootim]

Odd that so many posters haven't read the OP and the link. The expenses scandal was a deliberate construct to pay MPs more through allowances. The new system will change that. The total amount MPs receive wont really change but it will be transparent. Thats it.

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25411182

 

I love it when things like this pop up right on time. as I was saying about the Lords.

[Barry Sanchez]

Odd that so many posters haven't read the OP and the link. The expenses scandal was a deliberate construct to pay MPs more through allowances. The new system will change that. The total amount MPs receive wont really change but it will be transparent. Thats it.

 

No it wont, it constructed by the people using it, they have no masters. The reason they have not bleated about pay is obvious, they are happy as it is.

[Saintandy666]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25411182

 

I love it when things like this pop up right on time. as I was saying about the Lords.

 

Bit over-egged this is. There is a lot more to being a Lord than sitting in the chamber debating. Same for being an MP, except Lords don't get the funding to support them in the other work they do as a Lord so have to clock in to do that.

[Barry Sanchez]

Bit over-egged this is. There is a lot more to being a Lord than sitting in the chamber debating. Same for being an MP, except Lords don't get the funding to support them in the other work they do as a Lord so have to clock in to do that.

 

Its relevant though as it happens all the time, how many Lords asks questions, appear for important votes, questions and hold mp's to account?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/video-ex-tory-lord-hanningfield-exposed-2934895

[Saintandy666]

Its relevant though as it happens all the time, how many Lords asks questions, appear for important votes, questions and hold mp's to account?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/video-ex-tory-lord-hanningfield-exposed-2934895

 

Yes, but as I already said parliamentary speaking etc is just one part of a much larger job. And also, many Lords do refrain from speaking on certain issues as it is not their expertise whereas there will be other lords in the house who are expert on that. That is perhaps the one advantage of appointed Lords if done properly, you get people who'd never run for parliament and are highly knowledgable and experienced in their field.

[Barry Sanchez]

Yes, but as I already said parliamentary speaking etc is just one part of a much larger job. And also, many Lords do refrain from speaking on certain issues as it is not their expertise whereas there will be other lords in the house who are expert on that. That is perhaps the one advantage of appointed Lords if done properly, you get people who'd never run for parliament and are highly knowledgable and experienced in their field.

 

 

Of course people to the house of Lords should elected, its completely undemocratic and a disgrace an ex con can walk straight back in to it, its corrupt and broken.

[Saintandy666]

Of course people to the house of Lords should elected, its completely undemocratic and a disgrace an ex con can walk straight back in to it, its corrupt and broken.

 

I totally agree with you. The House of Lords should absolutely be elected. I was just presenting the other side of the case, and saying an advantage of the current system. Though obviously I disagree with that current system!

[Lord Duckhunter]

If you had a wholly elected house of lords, then you would have a challange to the ultimate authority of the commons. At the moment the will of the commons has to prevail as the government can force legislation through eventually. A fully elected house of lords will have a legitimacy that could end up blocking government business. All you will do is create another layer of professional politicians. The principle of a revising chamber filled with experts and noble citizens is sound, its the professional politicians from the commons that abuse it by filling it with supporters,donors, cronies and ex mps bribed to give up their safe seats.

[buctootim]

If you had a wholly elected house of lords, then you would have a challange to the ultimate authority of the commons. At the moment the will of the commons has to prevail as the government can force legislation through eventually. A fully elected house of lords will have a legitimacy that could end up blocking government business. All you will do is create another layer of professional politicians. The principle of a revising chamber filled with experts and noble citizens is sound, its the professional politicians from the commons that abuse it by filling it with supporters,donors, cronies and ex mps bribed to give up their safe seats.

 

Totally agree. the House of Lords is one of those things which shouldn't work, but does. If the political honours were removed so it was just a revising chamber made up of people who have done something worthwhile with their lives it would be even better.

[Bearsy]

Got to pay he what he's worth IMO otherwise he'll just go spurs.

[solentstars]

Totally agree. the House of Lords is one of those things which shouldn't work, but does. If the political honours were removed so it was just a revising chamber made up of people who have done something worthwhile with their lives it would be even better.[/quotei]i don,t agree i work when you have a chamber of at least 900 peers soon to be over 1000 mainly ex politians is is more akin to the chinese communist party in my view.a elected second chamber is the norm in most modern democracy for decades reform is long overdue but lord duckhunter is right it will challenge the authority of parliment which i think is a good thing.the whole system needs a big shake up.parliament needs to reduce the mps by half for a start and a voteing system which represents the way people actually vote in this country,sadley its not gone to happen for ages to many vested interests hence why people can not relate to politics .its all pantomime stuff from a bygone era.