MP's Pay

[endplay]

So an independent pay body has recommended a £10k pay rise for MP's and the predictable response of our elected leaders is that they have no say in the matter and must simply accept the decision.
Strange then, that IIRC the AFPRB used to include a one liner in it's multi-paged document that referred to "Government Policy". In other words, irrespective of the evidence our pay rise was limited to whatever the government wanted it to be.

Nice to know that we are all in it together?

[Jumping_Jack]

The AFPRB hasn't been independent for a while. Reinforced this year by the 'removal' of the chairman for having the audacity to recommend a .5% increase in x factor. Message well and truly sent to future Chairs! :hmm:

[Manandboy]

Even more iniquitous - "a group of MPs" is suggesting that policemen who misbehave should have their pensions cut. What about "an independent body" to suggest options for what should happen to MPs!

Rant off - for a little while! :*

[Dysonsphere]

No were all in it together, MP's are in it for themselves only and b****r the rest of us. You may have heard even if Cameron trys to veto it 2/3 rds of MP's will vote for it. So there you have it one rule for us and a differant rule for them. Like pigs to the trough.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Interesting game that MPs are playing, "What does it take to generate a British Spring?"

Sadly, more than this I suspect.

[ImageGear]

So when the "shocked and horrified" of Camberley quit voting out of sheer frustration with the "Poli's" policies, the rabble always exercise their "rights" and elect another round of jungle rustlers, ne'er-do-wells and Nottignam Knockers to govern us.

I note with interest, the ever increasing number of RAF expats browsing these boards from the Luberon, Dordogne and similar Gallic parts to the South. Given up have we ?? - well I won't be putting the lights out - I left years ago. :ok:

[Tourist]

Strangely, I disagree.

I think MPs should have a massive payrise. (X2 or x3)

We currently live in a country where a Headmaster of a medium sized school is paid more than the prime minister.

No wonder only idiots apply.

Pay properly, and expect and require high standards and no outside interests.

[Wyler]

I also agree. However, I think you should not be considered as an MP until you are at least 50 and have completed something of note in either the Private or Public Sectore. You can serve for a maximum of 10 years and you must have lived and worked in your constituency for at least 20 years.
Then, and only then, would I accept them getting a pay rise of at least double what they are on now.
Whilst they still parachute in idiots and air heads under the age of 30 who do not know their arses from their elbows then what they have now is plenty.

[Burnt Fishtrousers]

Give 'em what the public sector get...and scrap this annual salary tax free lump sum when they are voted out....

lets not forget the other 70K they can rack up in expenses which they will invariably fiddle claiming... their garden furniture was essential as they were entertaining the Chinese ambassador one day.

second home mortgage relief

first class travel

etc etc

[TomJoad]

To the barricades:E

[muppetofthenorth]

Agreed with everything Wyler said... apart from this bit:
you must have lived and worked in your constituency for at least 20 years.

That would discount any ex-Forces personnel from ever serving as an MP. There'd be huge competition for some constituencies and virtually no competition in others.

[dctyke]

Look at Mr Browns record, you don't even have to go to parliament or your constituency office to get your money. Stay on the US lecture trail or some other 2nd job to get a pay top up instead.

[Red Line Entry]

I agree. Double the pay but half the numbers.

[Tourist]

Whilst I too would like to see more MPs with a background in real life, the problem with that is that you need young leaders to change things.

When all is good in the world, old buggers are good for maintaining a status quo, but when things are crappy, youth is need to make the change as they are not institutionalised. They don't "know" what all the old people "know" wont work, so they try it, and sometimes it does work!

If you take a quick poll of the " great" leaders in history, most of them are very very young.

[gr4techie]

Strangely, I disagree.

I think MPs should have a massive payrise. (X2 or x3)

We currently live in a country where a Headmaster of a medium sized school is paid more than the prime minister.

No wonder only idiots apply.

Pay properly, and expect and require high standards and no outside interests.

Quite simply, one is a great leader with enormous managerial responsibility and who's actions have a massive effect on our future, the other is David Cameron. a Headmaster of a medium sized school deserves the money he earns. The prime minister does not.

Maybe MP's are just not as good as they think and civvy managers out there do a better and difficult job.

Like the rest of us, if the PM doesn't like it, he can PVR. "Dave, KFC are recruiting burger flippers in Elgin".

[B Fraser]

Be fair, we do have the best politicians money can buy.

:rolleyes:

[thing]

'There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss'

Pete Townshend, 1970.

[tucumseh]

Over the last few years I've learned a lot about the way MPs work, and how they are constrained. My own MP, a Minister, is both a nice guy and as honest as the day is long. Is he worth his salary? I think HE is, but many others should be dismissed on limited efficiency grounds. But then that would set a precedent in the Public Service.

A typical constraint? I was asked by one MP, not my own, to assist the mother of a deceased airman in her bid to have the Coroner's Inquest re-opened. (MoD had lied to her family and the Court - the usual stuff. MoD had refused to release the evidence, but the Coroner's Officer handed it over). The MP was promptly placed on the committee looking into the proposed changes to the rules governing Coroners' Inquests. Remember that? More secrecy, and word of them being ditched altogether.

He sent me an e-mail apologising for having to step back from his campaign in support of the mother, because as a committee member he was no longer permitted to ask related questions in the House.

The point being, it isn't always the individual, but the system they work within and those at the top who "manage" it. This was clearly a quite deliberate act of gagging, hidden behind an archaic rule that he, as a soon-to-retire 30+ year MP had never heard of.

[Tourist]

"Quite simply, one is a great leader with enormous managerial responsibility and who's actions have a massive effect on our future, the other is David Cameron. a Headmaster of a medium sized school deserves the money he earns. The prime minister does not."

What a silly statement.


Some headmasters are good, some are ****e. Most have very little influence on anyone. They are a managerial role.

Pretending that any headmaster has a greater ability to affect lives than a prime minister is puerile childishness.

[thing]

Some headmasters are good, some are ****e. Most have very little influence on anyone.

And that is indeed puerile nonsense.

[smujsmith]

I have to say I found it quite amusing this morning to hear a "backbench" Tory chap, saying how if you pay us peanuts you will get monkeys. He then proceeded to bluster and bull about needing a decent level of wages or only the fortunate rich people could afford to be MPs. Hmm, says I to myself, I wonder when this chap last had a good look at his front bench? Multi and Standard (whatever that is) millionaires abound, including Libdems. A glance across the dispatch box will reflect the equally prosperous opposition. Pay is nothing to do with who gets to be an MP, that is now a function of party management, most MPs have a career in the game, researcher, assistant and then dropped in to a seat. Mere "erberts", the likes of me have no chance. No, I suspect that this is a preplanned go at expanding the old bank accounts, and continuing the tradition of troughing at taxpayer expense. Be nice if they were just a bit honest about it though.:rolleyes:

Smudge

[Wander00]

About time someone investigated Margaret Hodge -- what's that? Wife says there is a black Omega outside

[qwertyuiop]

The more we pay MPs the worse they become!!

We want conviction politicians not people in it because it pays well.

In all other jobs the politicians say market forces dictate the salary, I say halve the salary and get people who really want the job.

[NutLoose]

The poll on MSN while being unofficial asked

have their wages remain as is,

give them a payrise or

give them £26,500 the national average..

It was 75% in favour of the 26,500

[smujsmith]

Nutloose,

Thanks for that post:ok:, its something that had not occurred to me. Letting them live on the average national salary. What a fine idea, I think a dose of dormitory living whilst in London, would also ensure none of them made heaps of money at our expense. Likewise, having to pay for unsubsidised food and drink whilst on "duty" at Parlousment would open their eyes. I suspect that, unfortunately, the elected ones don't take too much notice of public opinion as they might realise that we, see the rip off that they are trying to pull. I say go ahead pollies, give yourselves more money, at your peril.

Smudge

[Melchett01]

What a fine idea, I think a dose of dormitory living whilst in London, would also ensure none of them made heaps of money at our expense.

Well it's funny you should mention that. I do believe the Old War Office Building on Whitehall is soon to be put up for sale, the general consensus being it will be sold to a property developer who will either turn it into a hotel or some very very expensive apartments.

Given the money we've just saved from the recent spending review, could we just keep OWOB (seeing as we already own it and therefore don't have to spend money on buying somewhere new), spend some of the savings on renovating the place (I will admit that it's looking rather tired inside, and I'd hate for anyone with a position of some responsibility to have to live in sub-standard accommodation) and put the MPs in there when they are in Town? The last time I was in there, I think it had something like over 1,000 rooms and several miles of corridors, so plenty of space for 600-odd MPs once the refurb has taken place and it's just round the corner from the Commons and a lot of the other Departments.

If it was secure enough for the Army and later the MOD, then surely it is secure enough to house MPs. The refurb costs would more than likely be off-set by the taxes generated from the companies involved in the project along with the longer term savings from allowances, second homes etc etc etc. You know, I might just write to my MP and suggest it. May even stick in a Gems bid too!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Why don't we annoy all the 'easy life'rs - Convert Chelsea Barracks to MPs' accommodation?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Have to agree with F3WMB. I've long thought that we could save the taxpayer a shed load of money by building an MPs Mess on government owned land and provide them all with an small apartment to live in whilst in town. No more second homes to worry about, no more tax payer funded second mortgages, there's even a stick of furniture available through the supply system so need to fund MPs extra king size double beds. Charge them living in charges whilst they use the Mess and we could even put on a contractor run canteen on a Pay as you Dine basis which would save more taxpayers money. If they want the latest 42" TV for their room, let them fund that themselves - just like I had to do when living in the Mess and got fed up trying to watch the Six Nations on my old 12" portable!

I think Smuj is being a tad harsh on random wealthy Tory MP. If its the same one as I saw; as well as mentioning wealthy MPs he did also say something along the lines "or those who have come straight from the education system and who know no different [regarding pay] and have no experience of wider life". I am sure we all agree that we need to stop career politicians, IMO this is what is destroying politics and hence our country.

[The Old Fat One]

I am sure we all agree that we need to stop career politicians, IMO this is what is destroying politics and hence our country.

Totally, as I have posted before I know one such. Entered politics at 16 in uni, worked as an assistant for a sitting MP. Stood for election aged 25 (failed).Stood for election as an MEP (elected). Now in mid thirties on 100K plus with a staff of about 9. Total time in real life/proper job = 0. And if you read their social media posts, boy does it show.

I'm not in favour of the more extreme measures re accommodation, nor would I like to see MPs poorly paid. The job merits decent pay and conditions...more accountability would be a better objective.

I wonder though...

Every five years or so we get to make our impact at the ballet box. How many of you will trot down the polling station and make protest vote, by putting your X next to an independent or minority party? Or will you just vote the way you and your parents always have?

You get the newspapers you buy and politicians you vote for. Fed up with it all...then vote for change.

[theboywide]

Move parliament to Scunthorpe, sell real estate, settle national debt.
Voila.

[dallas]

I've got no problem with people making money for the work they do, but especially when those people are legislating for the masses they have to apply the models of the rules they set and not be the exemption.

A good example of a public-sector allowances system is the one used by the armed forces, who are provided with accommodation, normally relatively cheaply, which they occupy when in the role they are employed for, but who must return it when their job changes. The trimmed down military allowances system is now frugal, but generally speaking repays people for legitimate costs, and matches the need for universal public sector frugality. So accepting there will be differences, what is wrong with the same principles being applied MPs?

The road to revolution is paved with examples of appointed leaders imposing 'do what I say, not what I do'.

[teeteringhead]

I think the most important failing of our MPs is indeed their (with some notable exceptions) lack of "real-world" experience.

For those of my vintage, the likes of Jack Straw and Peter Hain first painted on the radar as "student activists" in the 60s and 70s, so were the vanguard of those who had never had a proper job.

I guess the last PM to qualify was John Major - no O' Levels but got to be a Bank Manager - quite an achievement then - so he must have had something!

And the blessed Margaret invented Mr Whippy!

Fortunately my MP - and a Minister - worked in industry for nearly 20 years before becoming an MP in his early 40s. Not a bad template methinks.....

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

TOFO makes good points. Here's the problem.
The Parliamentary system is an elected dictatorship.
All current politicians value personal loyalty above all else.
Junior career politicians are preferred as candidates precisely because they have never had and are extremely unlikely to get 'a real job'. They are thus dependent on their senior political sponsors.
The chances of people with good real world experience getting selected is not high, both because they are not dependent, and because their real world experience means they are liable to think much of party political policy is b@llocks, and say so. This is seen as disloyalty to the policy writer, rather than as constructive criticism.
Even if somebody with useful real world experience gets selected and elected, there are no longer enough of them to make a difference. The bright ones understand this and so never stand in the first place.
There are only two inevitable results. The electorate stop thinking about parties and start thinking about candidates, or violent revolution as a result of societal/economic collapse brought about by policies devised by politicians with no real world experience.

[Alpha Whiskey]

Whilst my initial instinct lay with the majority opinion here, I now belive that the issue isn't quite so straightforward.

On the one hand, there is case for ensuring our MPs receive a salary appropriate to the standing we believe we want to hold them in. Pitching that at mid-level SO1 level seems about right in my opinion. Aim lower than that and frankly you dis-incentivise a large swathe of suitable candidates from the role and leave the field clear for those of substantial personal wealth or those of lesser means but with an eye for alternative income streams perhaps at odds with the role. That said, the allowances and accommodation package is ripe for overhaul - I have never understood why MPs can't have exactly the same deal as MOD desk officers.

The big issue, though, is the perception of a big rise now against a back drop of austerity and public pay restraint. Not an easy one to square and frankly will need lots of spin to avoid the inevitable backlash. However, no matter how the issue is tackled, it needs firm and clear leadership and a strong narrative - either way. Sadly, these are qualities currently lacking in the Palace of Westminster.....

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

If MPs had any sense of firm and clear leadership, they would have frozen their own pay and cut their allowances before insisting on the same from other public servants.
That they did no such thing and are now seeking to increase their own pay says it all.

As a case in point, I am about to take up a public service post and have asked for a salary significantly below the average for the post. The money thus saved will be distributed amongst the salaries of the other staff. And yes, if anyone asks, I do intend to embarrass the heck out of the other money grabbers.

[charliegolf]

Some headmasters are good, some are ****e. Most have very little influence on anyone. They are a managerial role.

Good Ts and Cs though:ok: Sticks n stones etc.

CG

[tucumseh]

On the one hand, there is case for ensuring our MPs receive a salary appropriate to the standing we believe we want to hold them in. Pitching that at mid-level SO1 level seems about right in my opinion.

Not too long ago an MP's salary was tied to that of a Principal in the Civil Service. In today's language that's a UG7/B2. Before the CS pay cuts of recent years it was never far away from this despite the formal link being severed. It was the benefits/pension/expenses etc that made the difference. Until they got caught in the trough a couple of years ago that was the financial incentive they had. I always looked upon them as being of middle officer rank, but with all the benefits and future employment prospects of VSOs.

[langleybaston]

As somebody paid as a Principal Scientific Officer I always thought MPs were tied to Senior Principal?

Or do I have a claim for being underpaid during 17 years in grade?

I could do with a little extra, never mind the pension enhancement!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

...is your duck house in need of repairs, Langley?:E

[Rosevidney1]

Let's try the Swiss way. Parliament will only then sit for brief periods during the year. Parliamentarians will not be in a full time career stream (aka gravy train) and by not sitting for so long they will have to concentrate on what is necessary for the nation, not into meddling with foolish things that guarantee them media coverage. All big decisions to be put to a referendum by the populace.

[SOSL]

Seems to me that the Government is equivalent to the board of directors of the UK. The members are there to serve the public and represent their constituency.

Like it or not, the members of parliament are required to contribute to the policy and strategy of the nation while also representing the views of their constituents and, often intervening in problems on behalf of their constituents or other members of the public.

None of these roles could be easy in themselves but when combined they must be extremely difficult, given that the individual MP could well be pulled in different directions by each of these roles in any particular situation.

I'm no apologist for MPs and their pay-scales but if we want these people to do such a difficult and important job for us why should we begrudge them a decent salary.

Rgds SOS

[tucumseh]

lb

Or do I have a claim for being underpaid during 17 years in grade?

Either way, you've been underpaid. One of the worst decisions ever made was to privatise MoD scientific services.



SOSL

I'm no apologist for MPs and their pay-scales but if we want these people to do such a difficult and important job for us why should we begrudge them a decent salary.

I agree, but there are too many of them in the "smug bas****" category. The likes of Cameron and Osborne come across as overgrown children who are playing an imaginary game where they can forget reality for a while. Every time Osborne opens his mouth there are 60 million people in the country saying "OK for you mate, if you lose your job you never have to work another day in your life". People in that situation, who are not self-made, seldom make good politicians.



Seems to me that the Government is equivalent to the board of directors of the UK.


They're more like the Management Board of an MoD IPT I used to know. 15 inexperienced and junior staff who, if they were seen to "manage" ok, would in time be allowed to manage a minor project.

[theboywide]

I don't begrudge them a decent salary. They have one.

I do begrudge them telling the country "we're all in this together" and "this is a time for austerity" and then awarding themselves a big fat pay rise.
Also, its a little too close to the bone to say that there's no way to change the recommendations of an independant board when they tried to do that and fired the chairman of the AFPRB for recommending a 1/2% rise in X factor.

[Al R]

It isn't just us being in it together that wearies me these days. It seems we have some nice weather on the way so brace yourselves for hosepipe bans, pictures of a parched and wilderness-like Rutland Water (wherever), claims that it is hotter than Riyadh, footage of Cornettos streaming off productions lines, Northern seaside towns bursting with ruddy faced lobsters gorging themselves on ice cream, office workers 'stripping off' in council parks and of course, government 'advice'.

Its that time of year too, for getting tough. On what? Does it matter? The heat, sunscreen manufacturers, councils stocks of grit for winter, police reform, pay day loan companies.. anything.. earlier today, it seems we're getting tough on foreigners using the NHS.. again. Does the state have these sorts of crass initiatives on file to be rolled out to deflect flak and heat?

I wish the state would get tough on growth and unemployment, tapering off of QE, a 50 foot bond bubble, the Chinese credit crunch and creeping Bond yields - you know, the sort of stuff we pay them for, and not meddling with the minutiae, the harping on, the hypocritical pontificating and picking our pockets all the time. Alas, it is too little too late, I've had enough and if Prism is reading this - sorry, I really don't care anymore.

[A2QFI]

There are scores, if not hundreds, of applicants for selection as candidates to stand as MPs. If the job is that popular it is a reason for keeping the salary on the low side

[A and C]

Most of the MP's I have met are generally a hard working lot who try do the best they can for those they represent, of course the Daily Mail loves a good story about those who fall short of the mark but you get these people in any profession and all should not be tared with the same brush.

As for those above who think that MP's should get no expenses please tel me how an MP from the north of the UK can be expected to do his job without them ? How can the guy meet with his constituents and represent them in London without help with his travel expences, he would be bankrupt is a year without his travel expences paid !

Please think before you write and don't swallow whole the Daily Mail's envy based agenda that plays to the lower middle class under achivers who read the so called newspaper.

The one thing that has had me wondering is why Tory MP's wives all look like they were all cast from the same mold, is there a machine in Tory Central Office that makes these women ? Or do they turn that way after a few years living with an MP ?

[The Old Fat One]

....lower middle class under achivers....

Curse those lower middle class layabouts! Some of them can't even spell!