MP Wreath expense claim shocker

[sadoldgit]

But doesn't come close to what they could earn in the commercial world.

 

Nothing stopping them going for jobs in the private sector. Funny that, no matter how badly some of you think MPs are paid there is never a shortage of applicants is there?

[Special K]

Too many go into politics without any experience of the real world, either through the public or private sectors. Personally, I'd like to see anyone who is serious about becoming a front bencher to be obliged to spend 5 years in the private sector (and not just spent tossing it off at Uncle Bertie's Asset Management Co) and 5 years in the public sector, at least 2 of which should be spent working in the NHS and 1 year in Education. They should also have to live off the wages appropriate for the roles they carry out. In addition to this, they should not be allowed to become a front bencher until at least 45 years of age. IMHO this would make them more understanding of the organisations they spend a fleeting few years trying their best to balls up. If they did this, I'd be happy for them to earn a few more bob.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Well good for you. I think you will find that a lot of us would love to earn £50k. My wife is a senior manager in the CPS with 30 years service and earns £35k with no perks.

 

The principle is the same isn't it? The public sector pays for less than the private sector. Surely you want "decent people" in public sectors jobs across the board? If so why not pay them all better money and not just feckin MPs.

 

£50k for sitting around in a tin can all day, no wonder you have a warped view of the world. I get £25k for working 10 hours a day managing staff who are totally demotivated, underpaid and overworked.

 

Poke it.

 

I am sure if you wanted to you could definitely earn more though, don't think it's fair to have a go at Jamie for maximising his earning potential. It's all about warning the best money for the minimum effort and with the best work/life balance.

[Jonnyboy]

I am sure if you wanted to you could definitely earn more though, don't think it's fair to have a go at Jamie for maximising his earning potential. It's all about warning the best money for the minimum effort and with the best work/life balance.

 

Aka greed.

[sadoldgit]

Batman, ok so you think that MPs should get more money. Where do you think it comes from? Are you prepared to pay more taxes or have your wages cut to the national average to pay for it?

 

Government spending is constantly being cut (yet MPs still voted to spend more on their wages).

 

Our agency will not exist soon. People are leaving on a regular basis. My wife and I are leaving at the end of this month because we have had enough. We have four children between us and earn around £55k pa between us. No doubt we shall be earning less when we leave and find new jobs.

 

Every year we have been asked to save £2m. The only way to do that is to get rid of staff and offices. When you do that you reduce your efficiency. We are getting to the point where we can no longer function properly.

 

If MPs want more money they need to do the same. Close buildings and get rid of staff. Fewer MPs, more money. Mind you, they wont have so much time to write books or work as consultants will they? Trust me, even if you pay them more they will find ways of earning more.

[sadoldgit]

I am sure if you wanted to you could definitely earn more though, don't think it's fair to have a go at Jamie for maximising his earning potential. It's all about warning the best money for the minimum effort and with the best work/life balance.

 

At 61? It is highly unlikely. I am currently looking for a new job and will be lucky to get around £20. I have no problem with him earning what he does. What I have a problem with is his skewed view of wages in the public sector. It is very easy to say pay someone more when you are earning twice the national average yourself. Has he offered to pay more taxes or take a pay cut though? No. Where does he think the money comes from? It comes from the rest of the public workers who have to face more and more cuts - some of this money goes to pay MPs more. Fair? Why don't MPs have to face cuts when the rest of us do?

[Jonnyboy]

It's all about warning the best money for the minimum effort and with the best work/life balance.

 

Great motto for the people shaping our country's future to have.

[Jonnyboy]

It's all about warning the best money for the minimum effort and with the best work/life balance.

 

Dupe.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Great motto for the people shaping our country's future to have.

 

Yeah, I agree. People should try to live their life to the max. It all depends on what you do. Some people love the thought of building up a company from the ground, working extremely hard and doing it that way, giving themselves an easier life in retirement (a lot retiring early)but a lot missing their kids grow up, working extremely long hours. Others prefer a more consistent approach, working a standard 9 to 5, but maximising their earning potential through that. That's my way.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

At 61? It is highly unlikely. I am currently looking for a new job and will be lucky to get around £20. I have no problem with him earning what he does. What I have a problem with is his skewed view of wages in the public sector. It is very easy to say pay someone more when you are earning twice the national average yourself. Has he offered to pay more taxes or take a pay cut though? No. Where does he think the money comes from? It comes from the rest of the public workers who have to face more and more cuts - some of this money goes to pay MPs more. Fair? Why don't MPs have to face cuts when the rest of us do?

 

To be fair he would pay 40% tax for some of his income, and obviously contributes a higher about of NI due to that.

 

I thought MP's were already having their wages frozen, or are you talking hypothetically?

 

There is money to pay our MP's more, but the issue is the calibre of person (not that people go into politics for money mind).

 

The issue is you'd like to think MP's are some of the better minds in the country, but due to the private sector paying so much more a lot of them won't even think about going into politics.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Jonnyboy]

Yeah, I agree. People should try to live their life to the max. It all depends on what you do. Some people love the thought of building up a company from the ground, working extremely hard and doing it that way, giving themselves an easier life in retirement (a lot retiring early)but a lot missing their kids grow up, working extremely long hours. Others prefer a more consistent approach, working a standard 9 to 5, but maximising their earning potential through that. That's my way.

 

You obviously didn't watch the Straw/Rifkind undercover report.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You obviously didn't watch the Straw/Rifkind undercover report.

 

I did not. Cash for access by the look of things. What's that got to do with what I said?

[Jonnyboy]

I did not. What were the conclusions?

 

Greedy, gullible, lazy MPs. "Maximum income for minimum effort."

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Greedy, gullible, lazy MPs. "Maximum income for minimum effort."

 

Yeah, in an underhand way. I'm talking about earnings through normal jobs. For instance I couldn't charge for any sort of access or anything like that and the vast majority of people couldn't.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[shurlock]

To be fair he would pay 40% tax for some of his income, and obviously contributes a higher about of NI due to that.

 

I thought MP's were already having their wages frozen, or are you talking hypothetically?

 

There is money to pay our MP's more, but the issue is the calibre of person (not that people go into politics for money mind).

 

The issue is you'd like to think MP's are some of the better minds in the country, but due to the private sector paying so much more a lot of them won't even think about going into politics.

 

You wildly overstate the impact that private sector pay has on whether people go into politics.

[sadoldgit]

If there is money to pay MPs more then it can only come from somewhere else in the public sector. They have voted themselves a payrise when they are cutting staff numbers and have frozen pay for everyone else. I would be more than happy to pay 40% tax if I was earning £50 like Batman.

 

Ok, so Batman wouldn't get out of bed for the £67k as an MP. So what kind of money do you think they should earn? How much would attract people out of the City? Bear in mind they would want a company car and all the benefits they currently get too. Without putting up taxes where do you think this money will come from UJ? I can tell you don't work in the public sector, if you did you would know all about the Government cuts and how they are affecting public servies. Why should MPs get more. Why not nurses. support staff in the Criminal Justice System, the Police, health care support workers etc - all the people who have had to take the brunt of the Government cuts over the last few years. I can tell you that incremental pay rises have just been scrapped so people starting out now on £17k pa do not know when ands if they will ever get an increase. But, who cares, we need to worry about people earning £67k.

 

In my book Batman, that is a big salary for what they do. If they are any good they will get a better job in the Cabinet and then the perks really start to mount up - plus the opportunities for more on the side.

 

Tony Blair may not have made a fortune as PM, but by God he is racking it in know, as did Thatcher. Have you seen what he earns for pitching up and talking b*ll*cks at functions?

[sadoldgit]

You wildly overstate the impact that private sector pay has on whether people go into politics.

 

Agree with this 100%

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You wildly overstate the impact that private sector pay has on whether people go into politics.

 

Maybe. I'm not a politician, or indeed want to be a politician, so it's difficult to comment. However, if they were paid more I would expect we'd have a larger pool of talent to pick from - that stands to reason.

 

In a world where Diane Abbott is/has been a politician, there is certainly a dearth of good candidates.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If there is money to pay MPs more then it can only come from somewhere else in the public sector. They have voted themselves a payrise when they are cutting staff numbers and have frozen pay for everyone else. I would be more than happy to pay 40% tax if I was earning £50 like Batman.

 

Ok, so Batman wouldn't get out of bed for the £67k as an MP. So what kind of money do you think they should earn? How much would attract people out of the City? Bear in mind they would want a company car and all the benefits they currently get too. Without putting up taxes where do you think this money will come from UJ? I can tell you don't work in the public sector, if you did you would know all about the Government cuts and how they are affecting public servies. Why should MPs get more. Why not nurses. support staff in the Criminal Justice System, the Police, health care support workers etc - all the people who have had to take the brunt of the Government cuts over the last few years. I can tell you that incremental pay rises have just been scrapped so people starting out now on £17k pa do not know when ands if they will ever get an increase. But, who cares, we need to worry about people earning £67k.

 

In my book Batman, that is a big salary for what they do. If they are any good they will get a better job in the Cabinet and then the perks really start to mount up - plus the opportunities for more on the side.

 

Tony Blair may not have made a fortune as PM, but by God he is racking it in know, as did Thatcher. Have you seen what he earns for pitching up and talking b*ll*cks at functions?

 

I don't have a problem with taxes being put up to increase the salaries, but we're talking an extra £20m a year, hardly a dent.

 

I'm also not necessarily talking about putting up their wages now, but when freezes are removed from other public sector jobs.

[sadoldgit]

Okay lets look at what people earn -

 

The average wage here is about £26,500

 

Washing dishes on a submarine £50,000

 

MP salary due to go up to £74,000 plus expenses

 

Care workers £12,804

 

Nurses £26,616

 

Ambulance Staff £22,854

 

Civil Servants £20,330

 

Adele £27,540,000

 

The Queen £36,100,000

[sadoldgit]

I don't have a problem with taxes being put up to increase the salaries, but we're talking an extra £20m a year, hardly a dent.

 

I'm also not necessarily talking about putting up their wages now, but when freezes are removed from other public sector jobs.

 

So the only people in the public sector who should get a pay rise are the MPs. The rest of the public sector who have had their pay frozen for several years will have to pay more taxes to pay for the MPs pay rise. Is that fair?

[pap]

Well, there's the oft-quoted statement that if MPs had to live on an average salary, social changes would come thick and fast. The sad thing is that in reality, all it is likely to achieve is create MPs that are already loaded and don't need the pittance of an average salary.

 

And a pittance it is. 26K a year is just over two grand a month before tax. Sort of acceptable for a single person, but no wage to be raising a family on, and that's the average. Many earn even less.

[sadoldgit]

If MPs salary was raised significantly all that would happen is you would get the same people you have at the moment earning much more money. I think it is the same as the nursing profession and the like. "Decent" people, as Batman calls them shun the job because of many other reasons other than salary. They would be either further removed from the issues that ordinary people face. As Pap says, if you want more and fair social change, put MPs on an average salary. They wouldn't have to go and speak to the oiks like us every 5 years then. They would know exactly what the issues were for ordinary folk.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by sadoldgit

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So the only people in the public sector who should get a pay rise are the MPs. The rest of the public sector who have had their pay frozen for several years will have to pay more taxes to pay for the MPs pay rise. Is that fair?

 

Where did I say other public sector workers shouldn't get a payrise?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Okay lets look at what people earn -

 

The average wage here is about £26,500

 

Washing dishes on a submarine £50,000

 

MP salary due to go up to £74,000 plus expenses

 

Care workers £12,804

 

Nurses £26,616

 

Ambulance Staff £22,854

 

Civil Servants £20,330

 

Adele £27,540,000

 

The Queen £36,100,000

 

There are others in the public sector that earn much more though, be interesting to see doctors, managers of hospitals, those high up in the forces etc and compare them to MP's.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If MPs salary was raised significantly all that would happen is you would get the same people you have at the moment earning much more money. I think it is the same as the nursing profession and the like. "Decent" people, as Batman calls them shun the job because of many other reasons other than salary. They would be either further removed from the issues that ordinary people face. As Pap says, if you want more and fair social change, put MPs on an average salary. They wouldn't have to go and speak to the oiks like us every 5 years then. They would know exactly what the issues were for ordinary folk.

 

Yes, but you wouldn't get people of a sufficient calibre taking those jobs.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if you put up the wages, you'd get a higher calibre of people, that happens in every industry and would happen for MP's as well.

[buctootim]

The main problem is not whether MPs salaries are about right or not - its the fact that the those at the top of the pile have been awarding themselves higher and higher salaries which are ever greater multiples of those at the bottom - with zero link to the actual performance of their companies.

 

A healthy global economy needs demand. You get more demand (and therefore more trade and employment and tax revenue) if you spread £1bn between 1million people than if you give it to one man. Paying people at the bottom more makes everyone richer. Paying salaried people at the top more (genuine entreprenuers excluded) leads to stagnation.

[View From The Top]

Yes, but you wouldn't get people of a sufficient calibre taking those jobs.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if you put up the wages, you'd get a higher calibre of people, that happens in every industry and would happen for MP's as well.

 

Perhaps you should tell the government that so maths & science graduates enter teaching as at the moment the low pay & deteriorating conditions means the country is 1000s short. When schools and colleges are holding interviews via Skype to Canada, Oz & NZ because no one is applying in the UK then you know you're in trouble.

 

Even £30,000 golden hellos (in return for 3 years service) aren't attracting applicants.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Perhaps you should tell the government that so maths & science graduates enter teaching as at the moment the low pay & deteriorating conditions means the country is 1000s short. When schools and colleges are holding interviews via Skype to Canada, Oz & NZ because no one is applying in the UK then you know you're in trouble.

 

Even £30,000 golden hellos (in return for 3 years service) aren't attracting applicants.

 

There is no doubt that the majority of public sector workers are poorly paid, but then obviously compared to other comparable nations (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) they are obviously paid well, otherwise these interviews wouldn't take place.

 

To be fair, I know someone who had didn't even do triple award science, and did a degree in psychology, who became a Physics teacher due to the golden hello. How you can become a Physics teacher without being any good at it I don't know.

[buctootim]

How you can become a Physics teacher without being any good at it I don't know.

 

Because there were no better candidates? Backs up what VFTT is saying.

[shurlock]

Maybe. I'm not a politician, or indeed want to be a politician, so it's difficult to comment. However, if they were paid more I would expect we'd have a larger pool of talent to pick from - that stands to reason.

 

In a world where Diane Abbott is/has been a politician, there is certainly a dearth of good candidates.

 

The world is more complicated, I assure you.

 

Politics is ultimately a vocation where nonmonetary factors matter more. Higher pay is not irrelevant but would arguably make less of a difference to the size of the talent pool than other interventions: changing the prestige/perception of politicians, even the role of government; increasing the influence of ordinary MPs on policymaking; lessening the grip of parties that set the terms of who goes into politics and place loyalty and long apprenticeships above competence, among other things.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by shurlock

[View From The Top]

There is no doubt that the majority of public sector workers are poorly paid, but then obviously compared to other comparable nations (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) they are obviously paid well, otherwise these interviews wouldn't take place.

To be fair, I know someone who had didn't even do triple award science, and did a degree in psychology, who became a Physics teacher due to the golden hello. How you can become a Physics teacher without being any good at it I don't know.

 

Um, no. It's young teachers wanting an opportunity to live in Europe for a few years using a sponsored visa. Most of these end up in the SE or London for obvious reasons.

[Jonnyboy]

Yes, but you wouldn't get people of a sufficient calibre taking those jobs.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if you put up the wages, you'd get a higher calibre of people, that happens in every industry and would happen for MP's as well.

 

Like Fred the Shred?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Because there were no better candidates? Backs up what VFTT is saying.

 

Well yes, obviously, that was a rhetorical question.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The world is more complicated, I assure you.

 

Politics is ultimately a vocation where nonmonetary factors matter more. Higher pay is not irrelevant but would arguably make less of a difference to the size of the talent pool than other interventions: changing the prestige/perception of politicians, even the role of government; increasing the influence of ordinary MPs on policymaking; lessening the grip of parties that set the terms of who goes into politics and place loyalty and long apprenticeships above competence, among other things.

 

I don't disagree, I said earlier that money isn't the reason one goes into politics. But as you say, it's not irrelevant.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Um, no. It's young teachers wanting an opportunity to live in Europe for a few years using a sponsored visa. Most of these end up in the SE or London for obvious reasons.

 

Fair enough. Do they get paid significantly less than in those countries?

Edited 17 March, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Whitey Grandad]

Maybe. I'm not a politician, or indeed want to be a politician, so it's difficult to comment. However, if they were paid more I would expect we'd have a larger pool of talent to pick from - that stands to reason.

 

In a world where Diane Abbott is/has been a politician, there is certainly a dearth of good candidates.

 

You would still end up with the Diane Abbotts no matter how much we paid them. It is the nature of politics.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You would still end up with the Diane Abbotts no matter how much we paid them. It is the nature of politics.

 

That's a depressing thought...

[hutch]

Are you on leave, saddy? Or do you get Tuesdays off at the CPS?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Are you on leave, saddy? Or do you get Tuesdays off at the CPS?

 

Day release...

[moonraker]

Okay lets look at what people earn -

 

The average wage here is about £26,500

 

Washing dishes on a submarine £50,000

 

MP salary due to go up to £74,000 plus expenses

 

Care workers £12,804

 

Nurses £26,616

 

Ambulance Staff £22,854

 

Civil Servants £20,330

 

Adele £27,540,000

 

The Queen £36,100,000

 

Don’t know where you get some of your figures from they don’t reflect what my family and friends get from the public sector and the ONS doesn’t agree either.

Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees. But the difference was skewed because more public sector jobs require high levels of skill and university degrees. I know this gap may have narrowed due to the very unfair pay freeze but you are (on average) still ahead. I recently had a good member of staff leave to do the same job in the Civil Service because she would get a 40% pay rise, and yes we may have been under paying her.

Additionally the public sector enjoy cheaper but better pension provision than the vast majority of private sector workers.

Also belittling Batman by calling him a dishwasher just serves to undermine your argument. If memory serves he is a Weapons Technician and to be on £50k will have spent at least 12 years training, gaining experience and qualifying by passing exams and interview boards. On top of that he spends extended period away from home and out of touch with loved ones, cant pop out for a pint or a meal and in the main does what is asked of him all without the right to strike. I do not know which agency you work for but I am sorry to say you should have chosen a different career if you don’t like the reward’s it provides.

Finally reducing the number of MP’s by 50 or so and increasing base salaries by 25% would cost approximately £12m, raising 1.5million public sector workers pay by the same amount would cost £10.5 billion.

Edited 17 March, 2015 by moonraker

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well good for you. I think you will find that a lot of us would love to earn £50k. My wife is a senior manager in the CPS with 30 years service and earns £35k with no perks.

 

The principle is the same isn't it? The public sector pays for less than the private sector. Surely you want "decent people" in public sectors jobs across the board? If so why not pay them all better money and not just feckin MPs.

 

£50k for sitting around in a tin can all day, no wonder you have a warped view of the world. I get £25k for working 10 hours a day managing staff who are totally demotivated, underpaid and overworked.

 

Poke it.

 

Don't want to get into a private / public debate , but historically the public sector was more secure. I'm not sure if that's the case now, but its a fact that the pension provisions are better overall. My Mrs is a midwife and its a joke that I earn twice as much as her basically managing 35 minimum wage people. However, where does it end. I've no doubt the police, fireman, nurses, teachers, midwives, are underpaid , but realistically we can't afford to give them all a pay rise.

[moonraker]

Okay lets look at what people earn -

 

The average wage here is about £26,500

 

Washing dishes on a submarine £50,000

 

MP salary due to go up to £74,000 plus expenses

 

Care workers £12,804

 

Nurses £26,616

 

Ambulance Staff £22,854

 

Civil Servants £20,330

 

Adele £27,540,000

 

The Queen £36,100,000

 

Had to check your Nurses Pay quote, nurses pay is banded, mimimum for SRN being £21.5k, this rises all the way to a maximum of £98,453 yes thats right £98 k or 20k more than an MP! They are aslo entiltled to up to £6700 london waiting. Equally you £22.8k for ambulance staff is pretty arbitary many earn more and some earn less, and as to the Civil Servant figure where did that come from?

[Batman]

Well good for you. I think you will find that a lot of us would love to earn £50k. My wife is a senior manager in the CPS with 30 years service and earns £35k with no perks.

 

The principle is the same isn't it? The public sector pays for less than the private sector. Surely you want "decent people" in public sectors jobs across the board? If so why not pay them all better money and not just feckin MPs.

 

£50k for sitting around in a tin can all day, no wonder you have a warped view of the world. I get £25k for working 10 hours a day managing staff who are totally demotivated, underpaid and overworked.

 

Poke it.

 

Sitting in a tin can all day. LMFAO.

You have no idea what l do or what I am qualified in

[pap]

Sitting in a tin can all day. LMFAO.

You have no idea what l do or what I am qualified in

 

Stop having a go at Jamie's function.

 

He is, in fact, the Royal Navy's super-secret bestest weapon.

 

They bung in him the water with a laptop. He makes a lot of noise and clogs up electronic systems.

 

It's extremely important work.

[Jonnyboy]

Stop having a go at Jamie's function.

 

He is, in fact, the Royal Navy's super-secret bestest weapon.

 

They bung in him the water with a laptop. He makes a lot of noise and clogs up electronic systems.

 

It's extremely important work.

 

He also cooks:

 

[lloydie]

Decent isn't enough. Not for the job they do

 

Exactly. Ever wondered why David Miliband, who most people thought was one of the best politicians around isn't back in politics? He could still be in Labour, wouldnt be that embarrissing i'd say its more to do with pay. He gets £300k per annum from his current job which when you include expenses, his deal takes it up to circa £1m per annum. That's working for a charity ffs!(in fairness, that salary is certainly pretty charitable!) Gives you an idea of what the best MP's can earn elsewhere and as such we are surprised when we don't seem to have a lot of them.

The ideal sort of people to be politicians in my opinion would be the sort of consultants that the government actually hire to come up with solutions to the governments problems in the 1st place from places like Deloitte, Bain, Accenture etc. These consultants are on mega money (over £1,000 per day in most cases).

 

Basically, you get what you pay for in the employment market.

[sadoldgit]

Exactly. Ever wondered why David Miliband, who most people thought was one of the best politicians around isn't back in politics? He could still be in Labour, wouldnt be that embarrissing i'd say its more to do with pay. He gets £300k per annum from his current job which when you include expenses, his deal takes it up to circa £1m per annum. That's working for a charity ffs!(in fairness, that salary is certainly pretty charitable!) Gives you an idea of what the best MP's can earn elsewhere and as such we are surprised when we don't seem to have a lot of them.

The ideal sort of people to be politicians in my opinion would be the sort of consultants that the government actually hire to come up with solutions to the governments problems in the 1st place from places like Deloitte, Bain, Accenture etc. These consultants are on mega money (over £1,000 per day in most cases).

 

Basically, you get what you pay for in the employment market.

 

I thought his leaving had more to do with a fall out with his bro? I believe his work is based in New York where they pay more don't they?

Edited 18 March, 2015 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

Sitting in a tin can all day. LMFAO.

You have no idea what l do or what I am qualified in

 

Yes I do. You are clearly the Cape Crusader of Camden Town and one of the many Superheroes that we are so lucky to have looking after us. Quite frankly I am shocked that you only get paid a paltry £50k for the work you do for us. It is a scandal.

[Batman]

Yes I do. You are clearly the Cape Crusader of Camden Town and one of the many Superheroes that we are so lucky to have looking after us. Quite frankly I am shocked that you only get paid a paltry £50k for the work you do for us. It is a scandal.

 

Brilliant stuff