Independent pay review [Archive]

Just This Once...

8th Dec 2013, 10:17

Given that there are over a 100 paid ministers for Westminster alone (Wales, Scotland and NI add yet more), if you are in power the odd of pulling in just a basic backbencher's salary from the tax payer is relatively low.

For other professions the MPs would be very keen to point out the expenses, grace and favour, tax breaks, direct employment of spouses and other family members, pension accrual rate, golden goodbyes, no record of hours actually worked, no compulsion to actually come to work etc etc….

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubadm/457/45701.gif

dctyke

8th Dec 2013, 10:29

However it's not just being an so called underpaid MP is it, how many of us could do these jobs whilst in 'full employment'?

Alan Milburn
Labour, Darlington
Former health secretary earned up to £30,000 last year as an adviser to Lloydspharmacy's Healthcare Advisory Panel, up to £35,000 as an adviser to equity investment firm Bridgepoint Capital, up to £25,000 as an adviser to PepsiCo UK, up to £25,000 from writing articles for national newspapers and an unknown sum as a non-executive director of AM Strategy Ltd, according to his declaration in the Register of Interests. Known total: up to £115,000
David Blunkett
Labour, Sheffield Brightside
Former home secetary earned up to £50,000 last year as an adviser to online logistics firm UC Group, up to £30,000 as an adviser to employment firm A4E Ltd, up to £25,000 from First Group as chair of Commission on School Transport, up to £60,000 fron newspaper articles including a 12-column Sun contract worth up to £50,000, up to £25,000 for speeches and an unknown sum as a non-executive director of Tribune Business Systems according to his declaration in the Register of Interests. Total: up to £190,000

Onceapilot

8th Dec 2013, 10:37

It is OK, they are getting an 8% pay cut when Scotland gets independence.:)

OAP

tmmorris

8th Dec 2013, 10:57

Just This Once: if you graphed that against the UK total population, it would (without crunching the maths properly) be pretty much a flat line.

Whether a proportionate increase in population means we need a proportionate increase in legislators and administrators is a different question (though it's assumed by Onceapilot)...

Just This Once...

8th Dec 2013, 14:48

I think our Empire was a little bit bigger at the start of the graph….

dctyke

8th Dec 2013, 16:12

^^^^^

However no minister for overseas aid!

Jumping_Jack

8th Dec 2013, 16:17

Bodes well for the acceptance of our own independent pay review body recommendation this yearRegrettably our own 'Independent' Review Body only recommends the amount the government has identified as the maximum, thus 1% recommendation this year. Look what happened to the AFPRB Chairman when he snuck the X factor increase in!! :ugh:

mopardave

8th Dec 2013, 16:34

"Bodes well for the acceptance of our own independent pay review body recommendation this year"

Don't you believe it mate........we tried it once (2002) and even used the same independent pay revue body that the government had just used to award themselves a stonking pay rise........they recommended we get a thirty per cent pay rise but funnily enough the then labour government told us to get stuffed! Not surprising really...........how were we so stupid as to think that Bliar and the economic "boy wonder" Brown could be expected to play fair!

I know mate, you don't really believe either do you?

Toadstool

8th Dec 2013, 16:52

Am I the only one who could catch the irony in the first statement?

Just This Once...

8th Dec 2013, 17:06

No!

:ok:

mopardave

8th Dec 2013, 20:23

of course not!

Courtney Mil

8th Dec 2013, 20:44

"They don't set their own pay", etc. But happy to take it.

The only truth here is politicians setting pay restraint for gov employees and verbally scolding bankers et al for their pay whilst acepting a very big pay rise by any standards.

I'm sorry, but when they are cutting everyone else's pay/benefits/etc, this massive pay rise sends an unimaginable message to the people they've been telling how important austerity is. Irony? No, arrogance.

VinRouge

8th Dec 2013, 20:54

Mp's pay has never equalled their responsibility or expectations in terms of abode location. One of the prime reasons stated for fiddled expenses has always been that allowances made up for the poor pay of MPs, as salaries have been suppressed over the years for political reasons.

Would Cameron and milliband be saying that they opposed the rise if it didn't win them votes at the next election?

If anyone is jealous of mp pay, why not inform manning you are running at the next by election?

Courtney Mil

8th Dec 2013, 21:14

One of the prime reasons stated for fiddled expenses has always been that allowances made up for the poor pay of MPs, as salaries have been suppressed over the years for political reasons.

Try using that excuse if you were, say, a member of the Armed Forces, a civil servant or a policeman.

VinRouge

8th Dec 2013, 21:44

Neither did the MPs that tried that reason. (Mostly labour btw).

mopardave

8th Dec 2013, 22:36

"If anyone is jealous of mp pay, why not inform manning you are running at the next by election?"

Jealous........strange choice of word. Jealousy has nothing whatsoever to do with it.......it's about leading by example. Something I would have thought any forces officer worth his or her salt would strive to demonstrate to his or her subordinates. Here we go again........snouts back in the trough! Courtney is quite right.......try any, and I mean any funny business in my branch of the emergency services and it's goodnight Vienna........and rightly so. I don't want to be told we're in it together, when clearly, we aren't!

RandomBlah

9th Dec 2013, 01:28

I think I am firmly in the minority here - but I think they should get the pay rise. In terms of annual pay (on paper) a backbencher earns less than me and they do have considerably more responsibility, public scrutiny etc.

However, I would expect additional rules to be introduced.

1. No second Jobs. If you are doing your job as an MP properly you do not have time to be an executive director, advisor to multinationals etc.

2. Attendance. As a taxpayer I would expect my MP to attend all sessions of the commons. With reasons given for any non-attendance.

3. The highest standards. Any financial misdemeanor in the service would be met by a strict punishment. The same should apply to MPs- not everything being written off as a "misunderstanding."

Courtney Mil

9th Dec 2013, 09:09

The validity of the 11% pay award is almost irrelevant here. It's the MPs' credibility when they cap everyone else to 1%, criticise the bankers and claim that we're all in it together.:=

Alpha Whiskey

9th Dec 2013, 09:58

Whilst I agree with the view that the new salary of £74k is probably about right, there are clear presentational issues with the implementation.

However, what I really object to as a tax payer is the suggestion that some MPs may give the extra salary to charity!! I am not grafting away to give HMRC nigh on 50% of everything I earn for a proportion of that to be unilaterally given away to a charitable cause of an MP's personal choosing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against charitable giving (I personally give a sum to charity every month from my pay), but surely better stewardship of public money would be exercised by changing the Westminster equivalent of JPA to allow salaries to be adjusted based on conscience!

Biggus

9th Dec 2013, 10:27

First of all, let me state clearly that I don't like MPs (that's putting it mildly)! There are far too many of them, and to me personally in many ways they represent the worst of mankind (I think that anyone who actually wants to be an MP should be barred from the job on principle).

Having said that, I'm not sure what the outrage bus is all about?

They set up a truly "independent" pay review body (unlike ours) so they couldn't be accused of deciding their own salaries, pensions, etc, and now find themselves in the embarrassing position of finding the recommendation of that body politically unacceptable. IT'S NOT MPs WHO SUGGESTED AN 11% RISE. Indeed most of the political leaders are embarrassed by it, and are saying it's too large given the current financial situation. Unfortunately they aren't in a position to be able to refuse it. That's one of the consequences of having set up an independent body in the first place!

If the government were to turn round tomorrow and say the armed forces are a special case, and will get a 5% rise when everyone else gets 1%, how many of you would actually give the money back/to charity, etc...?

Because the issue of MPs pay is so politically sensitive it has been kept artificially low for many years, good and bad, by successive governments. A TRULY INDEPENDENT body has come up with a figure they consider to be more relevant, which amounts to an 11% pay rise. It might be politically embarrassing, highly insensitive in today's climate, etc, but those sort of considerations are outside the remit of the review body.

Personally, I think if any MP isn't happy with the pay rise, then they simply shouldn't stand for re-election in 2015! That way the outgoing MP doesn't get a payrise, neither does the incoming MP, since they're new to the job, and for them it's just the salary that goes with the post. Gets my vote! :ok:

Alternatively, as a cost saving measure, we could put the MP jobs out to tender. I'd do it (full time) for £50k. Of course, I'm not saying how well I'd do it...... ;)

Ken Scott

9th Dec 2013, 10:57

Biggus

9th Dec 2013, 11:08

Ken,

We are probably far closer to being in agreement than you realize. My comment which you highlighted largely referred to the PPE from Oxford/Cambridge, head of student union, political researcher for MP, cannon fodder failure in safe opposition seats, parachuted into safe seat nowhere near anywhere you have ever lived, sort of MP we largely seem to be saddled with today (there is a very similar progression ladder through the ranks of the Trade Unions, local councils, etc which I won't go into right now). :=

But my offer to do it for £50k still stands, and I couldn't do a worse job than some of them already seem to!

NutLoose

9th Dec 2013, 11:17

As with 20 and 21, but add to that their pension to be paid from retirement age as per the populace they serve.

Personally I do not think it should be backdated, not everyone gets yearly pay rises.

Look at the attendance rate of Brown since he lost, he should be stripped of his position as an MP, so he can go off and do his money earning schemes free from the burden of being an MP
He appears not tohave spent much time in the UK

TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10068)

Gordon Brown MP, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10068/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_cowdenbeath#register)

Interestingly there is no requirement for them to register that they are at the House of Commons, one wonders why not? surely a method of swiping in and out could be put in place, one for security measures and two it would allow people to see how much time they actually spend there.

..

Ken Scott

9th Dec 2013, 11:52

Basic economic theory says that demand & supply will be equal when the price is right - there are far more candidates at each election than there are seats available so clearly the pay is too high!

Biggus - I am entirely in agreement with your comments regarding the most common route taken by most MPs today. The Conservatives are attempting to woo ex-servicemen to become candidates at the next election - might supplement the pension quite nicely.....

gr4techie

9th Dec 2013, 16:39

They set up a truly "independent" pay review body (unlike ours) so they couldn't be accused of deciding their own salaries, pensions, etc, and now find themselves in the embarrassing position of finding the recommendation of that body politically unacceptable. IT'S NOT MPs WHO SUGGESTED AN 11% RISE. Indeed most of the political leaders are embarrassed by it, and are saying it's too large given the current financial situation. Unfortunately they aren't in a position to be able to refuse it.

Do you honestly believe any of that !

How convenient the politicians can't stop receiving more money, they must be devastated. Yeah right.

I found out today, my local MP claimed £188,164 worth of expenses in a year... on top of his salary. For speaking in only 48 debates and voting in 43.35% of votes. He must have a hard life.

Angus Robertson MP, Moray - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11189/angus_robertson/moray)

SNP's Angus Robertson claims £80,000 for second home: MPs' expenses - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5314297/SNPs-Angus-Robertson-claims-80000-for-second-home-MPs-expenses.html)

Dave Wilson

9th Dec 2013, 17:35

I'm with Biggus, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could spit which I grant you is unfortunate for any MP's that do have scruples...no scrub that, that's an oxymoron too far. However I do think that there should be a minimum age for it and some proven work experience. I don't count Oxbridge-research assistant-safe seat as proven work experience either. Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a career and TBH all of the people I know of my age group see politicians as a joke in bad taste. They have a long way to go to garner the trust of the public again, if they ever can.

It's about time they remembered that they are there to serve us and I don't buy the 'A medical consultant or headteacher earn such and such' as if they were comparable. That's an insult to medics and headteachers everywhere.

Biggus

9th Dec 2013, 17:40

gr4,

I believe it simply because it is true.

Do you know who Ipsa are? Of the historically fractious relationship between MPs and Ipsa. MPs have been bitching and moaning for months about Ipsa's enforcement and interpretation of the new allowance rules, the amount of time it takes to complete claims (a bit like JPA eh!) and the amount of auditing (All of which, incidentally, I have no sympathy for, and MPs brought upon themselves).

There is certainly no cosy "love in" relationship between the two. So I'm afraid I don't believe your "grassy knoll" conspiracy theory that Ipsa have somehow contrived to put more money in MPs back pockets.

In fact, a more likely scenario (but still not one I believe) is that Ipsa have been really sly and recommended a pay rise they know MPs will be forced to find a way to reject - thus eventually giving them nothing! Now that would a Machiavellian plot worthy of your fears of a conspiracy.

Courtney Mil

9th Dec 2013, 17:55

Out of interest, does anyone here know where IPSA take their evidence from? Surely they must interview MPs? Taken "evidence" from them? Conspiracy? No, probably not, but I'm sure there have been some quiet conversations between MPs and people they happen to know.

Dave Wilson

9th Dec 2013, 17:56

but I'm sure there have been some quiet conversations between MPs and people they happen to know.

No!! Never!!:eek:

:rolleyes:

mopardave

9th Dec 2013, 19:31

"They set up a truly "independent" pay review body (unlike ours) so they couldn't be accused of deciding their own salaries, pensions, etc, and now find themselves in the embarrassing position of finding the recommendation of that body politically unacceptable. IT'S NOT MPs WHO SUGGESTED AN 11% RISE. Indeed most of the political leaders are embarrassed by it, and are saying it's too large given the current financial situation. Unfortunately they aren't in a position to be able to refuse it. That's one of the consequences of having set up an independent body in the first place!"

Like I said.........we tried to be clever back in 2002. We used the same independent pay revue body that the labour government used.....what could possibly go wrong? Surely they would implement the findings of this respected and independent body......how could they not? Well they did............they told us to get stuffed! MP's should lead by example......morally, they have no choice! I can't help being suspicious where MP's are concerned........and that's putting it mildly!

racedo

9th Dec 2013, 21:18

An assumption made is that an MP is not doing any work unless they are in Parliment and acting as votying fodder for their party.

I agree with the issue that MPs parachuted in from Trade Unions / Political Staffers / Think tanks and post Oxbridge degree are not worth a damm and frankly are as much use as a burst condom.

Minimum requirement is some experience of real life rather than a cloistered view.

Salary for MP is poor and encourages expense fiddling.

Electoral system is so frigged that to be an MP in Southern England you join Tories, in Northern England you join Labour.

Perhaps about time to have real PR.

Dave Wilson

9th Dec 2013, 23:10

Salary for MP is poor and encourages expense fiddling.

No, no and thrice no. Does that mean then that anyone who thinks they aren't payed enough can fiddle their expenses? The main difference of course between MP's and normal humans is that if they get caught fiddling they can elect to 'pay it back.'

Yes I know some went to clink as a token gesture.

The Old Fat One

10th Dec 2013, 09:00

Excellent, coherent, very sober and utterly depressing interview on this subject on Radio 2 yesterday by Matthew Parris (who is very much in-the-know, so to speak).

in a nutshell...

MPs work on average a 69 hour week (plenty of studies on this).

If you extrapolate their hourly rate, they get less than London Tube drivers, teachers, doctors...the list is long.

what does this mean.

Successful career people, with significant lifetime acheivements are no longer applying to become MPs. Why not? Because such people know their self worth and do not get out of bed in the morning for a stressful, long-hour, relationship damaging job like being an MP for the sort of peanuts that are on offer at the moment.

As Parris put it, what we are now getting in the applications for all parties are:

Young "techno-politicians" with zero life/work experience.
Rich people operating out of self interest or celebrity motivation.
Failed business/career people looking for a way back.

In other words we are filling government with low grade politicians and, worse still, we know we are doing it.

You'd think educated people would be able to get their heads round this...no??

PS

I'm an ex RAF Squadron Leader and a retired Managing Director. I have two degrees, a decent IQ and I shin up mountains (usually alone) at every opportunity. I think I would make a tolerably decent MP.

As the consultant I now am I charge myself at at £50 per hour. Doing the math based on a 6 week holiday....50X69X46 = circa £158000 per annum. That's what I would do it for...ducy we are shooting off our own feet?

Courtney Mil

10th Dec 2013, 09:08

extrapolate their hourly rate

An RAF pilot is paid 24 hours a day, 356 days a year. Extrapolate that.

The Old Fat One

10th Dec 2013, 09:15

Come on Courtney Mil. You are cleverer than that response.

Dave Wilson

10th Dec 2013, 09:44

The thing is OFO an MP shouldn't be doing it for the money. They should be paid sufficient to live on fairly comfortably. I would counter your argument by saying that if you increased MPs salaries to a high level then that would attract the wrong sort.

My wife is a social services professional and if we worked out her hourly rate and paid her accordingly then I could probably retire. She does the job because she loves it and feels it is worthwhile

The Old Fat One

10th Dec 2013, 10:54

The thing is OFO an MP shouldn't be doing it for the money. They should be paid sufficient to live on fairly comfortably. I would counter your argument by saying that if you increased MPs salaries to a high level then that would attract the wrong sort.

I'm not making an argument...I'm reporting a fact. Successful people are not applying to become MPs. That is a very well known and well established fact. Neither am I making it about the money. It is total bullcrap and nonsense to suggest high flyers are all just motivated by money and greed...what absolute childish nonsense. Successful people are motivated by all sorts of things...but quality of life and the need for successful family relationships will be right up there. They simply won't put up a stressful, long-houred job, unless the are sufficiently remunerated, why on earth would they?

There are all sorts of good people, doing all sorts of good spirited public work, for relatively poor wages...good for them. I admire them. But it's absurd to suggest that qualifies them to govern a country.

BTW Neither Matthew Parris (who is not an MP but thinks MPs should better paid) nor the Tory Party MP who was arguing AGAINST the pay rise, had a solution.

So don't lose to much sleep over it, because we are ****ed either way.

racedo

10th Dec 2013, 11:25

No, no and thrice no. Does that mean then that anyone who thinks they aren't payed enough can fiddle their expenses? The main difference of course between MP's and normal humans is that if they get caught fiddling they can elect to 'pay it back.'

Yes I know some went to clink as a token gesture.

The whole point of the expenses system was that as MPs couldn't get a salary increase because it was deemed Politically untenable then the expense system was introduced to get around it.

Reading of MPs from Northern constituencies who struggled in the past to live in London because they had a family home up north and couldn't afford to stay in London is not a shock. A 1 bed sets up back £1500 a month, or £30k gross so you either pay them properly or get the dross you have.

racedo

10th Dec 2013, 11:30

BTW Neither Matthew Parris (who is not an MP but thinks MPs should better paid) nor the Tory Party MP who was arguing AGAINST the pay rise, had a solution.

Parris was an MP until he quit. Decent to average journalist.

The Old Fat One

10th Dec 2013, 13:16

Parris was an MP until he quit. Decent to average journalist.

I am aware of that thanks...more importantly he is an intelligent human being who knows how to convey a point and sitting on MP selection committees, as he does, is aware of what is really going on.

Big difference to the bar room thumping, social media following, newspaper generated outrage so adored by the modern general population. Bad enough when it is semi literate X Factor fans doing it, but when highly educated career military types start indulging (not just here...all over my FB as well) one cannot help but think there is no hope for this country whatsoever.

Dave Wilson

10th Dec 2013, 14:32

It is total bullcrap and nonsense to suggest high flyers are all just motivated by money and greed...what absolute childish nonsense.

So don't lose to much sleep over it

May I suggest you do the same...:)

racedo

10th Dec 2013, 16:07

I am aware of that thanks...more importantly he is an intelligent human being who knows how to convey a point and sitting on MP selection committees, as he does, is aware of what is really going on.

Big difference to the bar room thumping, social media following, newspaper generated outrage so adored by the modern general population. Bad enough when it is semi literate X Factor fans doing it, but when highly educated career military types start indulging (not just here...all over my FB as well) one cannot help but think there is no hope for this country whatsoever.

Difficult to disagree.

You may call yourself Old and Fat but you definitely not Stupid ;)

Party Animal

11th Dec 2013, 08:45

Digressing slightly but I've always thought that we should have built an MP's Mess in the middle of Whitehall. Not a new build obviously but the conversion of an existing public building. Maybe 3 floors in something like MOD MB divided between red, blue and the rest.

Provide a tv connection for rooms and a PAYD facility and we'd slash the expenses bill overnight.

The Old Fat One

11th Dec 2013, 09:47

DW

Good call :)

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 09:55

Wrathmonk

11th Dec 2013, 10:31

Party Animal

Digressing slightly but I've always thought that we should have built an MP's Mess in the middle of Whitehall. Not a new build obviously but the conversion of an existing public building.

Careful what you wish for - IIRC that was considered recently (-ish) as an option for all the London based military personnel as well (at least those there involuntary separated). The plan was to use one of the former "Military" buildings (or barracks) that had recently been vacated. It would have greatly reduced the military T&S bill.

Whenurhappy

11th Dec 2013, 12:22

Absolutely, a scoping study was carried out in 2006 to refurbish OWOB into suites for personnel serving in MB, under project SLAM. The repayment period - compared with the massive SSSA bill - was less than 10 years, but it was scotched at a high level because of the desire to reduce central London estate holdings.

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 12:43

Course putting everybody together in one location be it politicians or military has its own very real substantial risks.
Don't really think that needs spelling out.

Biggus

11th Dec 2013, 12:46

What.... you mean you run the risk that they might actually start talking to each other! :ok:

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 12:48

What.... you mean you run the risk that they might actually start talking to each other! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Junior politicians with desire for quick advancement and junior military with idea of same.............all talking together. Hmmmmmm

Party Animal

11th Dec 2013, 13:42

Course putting everybody together in one location be it politicians or military has its own very real substantial risks.

You mean we shouldn't have buildings like MOD, MI6, FCO etc, and of course the Houses of Parliament?

The difference is?

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 14:09

You mean we shouldn't have buildings like MOD, MI6, FCO etc, and of course the Houses of Parliament?

The difference is?

All in one building ?

Party Animal

11th Dec 2013, 15:23

That was my point racedo. The risk of a terrorist attack against an accommodation building for MPs is no different to the risk of an attack on the building where they work. I would have thought conversion of the OWOB into MPs suites a perfectly sensible solution rather than selling it off to a hotel chain.

Ministers could have rooms in the basement - down where they belong!

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 18:14

Ministers could have rooms in the basement - down where they belong!

Silly idea as then they would turn them into S&M palaces and rent them out like one a Tory minister had.........

gr4techie

11th Dec 2013, 18:27

Course putting everybody together in one location be it politicians or military has its own very real substantial risks.
Don't really think that needs spelling out.

A terrorist would do more harm to our nation by keeping the current bunch of incompetent pompous idiotic MP's alive!

racedo

11th Dec 2013, 18:30

A terrorist would do more harm to our nation by keeping the current bunch of incompetent pompous idiotic MP's alive!

You :mad::mad::mad::mad:
You owe me a coffee, mine went over my keyboard :)

Melchett01

11th Dec 2013, 19:10

I would have thought conversion of the OWOB into MPs suites a perfectly sensible solution rather than selling it off to a hotel chain.

Agree entirely and I too have thought pretty much the same thing. The only thing going against it is the cost of bringing it up to standard let alone converting it to accommodation - let's be honest, OWOB is pretty ropey in places. Although no more so than some Messes I have been in over the years.

But then again, the MOD has always been unimaginative when it comes to property and real estate disposal over the years, and the short term costs will probably outweigh the long term benefits in the eyes of the bean counters - a curse be up on them. I always thought Bentley Priory could have been retained and converted to a tri-service conference centre where you could hold 'away days' etc rather than going to some expensive hotel. It could be cleared up to the highest levels, is convenient (relatively) for most of the sS heads of sheds (RN might grumble) all in lovely surroundings. But after a group of us chest poked a DIO bod in the bar at Benson one happy hour, said DIO bod suggested that the high paid help had been told they could keep it if they could think of something to do with it. See, no imagination at all, just an eye on the bottom line.

Willard Whyte

11th Dec 2013, 20:52

But then again, the MOD has always been unimaginative.

Just leave it at that.

Onceapilot

20th Dec 2013, 17:08

So, MP's are seriously arguing that their 11% payrise is not actually a payrise because it is "balanced" by the cuts to their pensions and allowances etc.
Maybe Service personel should have a payrise to "balance" the cuts to their pensions and allowances?
Oh, I know, we are just waiting for the new pension terms to be announced, then the payrise to give a "no overall cost balance"- just like the MP's-will be published.:)

OAP

Canadian Break

20th Dec 2013, 18:26

Gents, I for one would have no problem with MPs being paid £100,000 per year. However, I would also re-write the rule book.
1. No becoming an MP before the age of 40 (happy to accept other ages suggestions)
2. No becoming an MP until you have had a "proper" job for 10 years (definition of proper job required).
3. MP is a full time job - no objection to long summer recess etc (comparable to schoolteachers perhaps) BUT - no other jobs, paid or unpaid.
i could go on - but i'm sure you get the gist. PAY PEANUTS (and if you look at their responsibilities then they probably are paid peanuts) AND YOU GET MONKEYS. As the late and much lamented Spike Milligan said to the would-be immigrant; "You want political asylum, go to Westminster, it's the finest political aslyum in the world". MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL PRUNERS. CB :ok:

The Old Fat One

22nd Dec 2013, 07:54

CB

Best post on this thread :ok:

Lima Juliet

22nd Dec 2013, 09:42

+1 agreed :ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Dec 2013, 09:54

Disagree.
The solution is not to restrict MPs as CB suggests, as this strikes at the root of democracy (never mind the consequences of defining about a quarter of current Government jobs as 'not a proper job').
The question must be "Why do people with CB's very reasonable characteristics not get elected?"
The answer, I think, is that in general they do not stand as candidates, because they have no chance of getting elected under the current party system.

The problem is the party system, (financial advantages in elections, whips etc) which needs dismantling in toto. Also, bring in STV.

Courtney Mil

22nd Dec 2013, 11:51

The solution is not to restrict MPs as CB suggests, as this strikes at the root of democracy

I'm not sure quite how requiring certain qualifications for any job is undemocratic. Certainly better than having a bunch of 20 year-old with no life experience taking decisions about matters they cannot possibly understand - apart from the dogma they may have picked up during their impressionable, formative years.

I can see that one ideal may be that ANYONE can be chosen to represent the people, but there have to be some requirements. Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye! :ok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jIE3b-bhY

Fox3WheresMyBanana

22nd Dec 2013, 12:12

If the right to choose an MP is granted at age 18, with no other restrictions, then why should the right to stand as a candidate to be an MP have any other restrictions?

If any other restrictions are placed on standing, it is saying that people don't have the wisdom to impose these restrictions on their free choice, in which case why are they presumed to have sufficient wisdom to have the right to vote?

By the argument you present Courtney, why do a bunch of 20 year olds have the right to vote when they will only be choosing a candidate based on their no life experience, etc?

Implicitly, any restriction on choice is undemocratic. Arguably, one does not become a member of the demos until 18; therefore, as at present, there are no restrictions on voting for or standing as a candidate for any public body,including parliament.

Whilst it is generally accepted in principle that experience aids decision-making, this is only one factor in a very complex issue. Whatever criteria are proposed, I guarantee you I can find an 18 year old you would rather have as an MP than a current MP who meets the criteria. I guarantee there are current MPs who are less capable than you, I, and quite a few other Ppruners were at 18. The voters should be allowed to weigh all the factors for themselves.

and in practical terms, is there any evidence that younger MPs make dumber decisions than older ones?

edit: Five MPs in the current Canadian Parliament were Uni students when elected, plus a 19 year old.Let's see how they do.
The mayor of Calgary was 38 when elected. The current mayor of Mississauga is 92. Both have been widely praised for their actions in disaster situations, which is arguably the most difficult part of their role. Age is not that big a factor.

Al R

23rd Dec 2013, 07:54

My local college does a public services course, which prepares military and police, firefighting and NHS etc yoof for a life in the sector which exists to support us. Bizarre, that there is absolutely no such similar requirement for MPs. I'm not saying there should be, but apart from those who enter via the public sector, should not some emphasis and weight be given to those who put their money where their mouths our, and not simply to those who want a few years on the CV before going back to the private sector trough? By at least showing commitment to understanding about the intrinsic value of 'service', and not simply treating it like a soundbite which has a commodity value, they might inspire confidence.

I am reminded of the humility of John Profumo who, after resigning (a novelty in itself these days) spent decades atoning for his mistakes by cleaning toilets in homeless shelters.