MP's Pay
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.
Smudge
Smudge
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,726 Likes
on
1,159 Posts
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
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
Nutloose,
Thanks for that post
, 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
Thanks for that post
, 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
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.
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!
Last edited by Melchett01; 1st Jul 2013 at 22:44.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure we all agree that we need to stop career politicians, IMO this is what is destroying politics and hence our country.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
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'.
Gentleman Aviator
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.....
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.....
Last edited by teeteringhead; 2nd Jul 2013 at 07:56.
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.
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.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 2nd Jul 2013 at 12:15.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Objectively Viewed, This Is Not So Straightforward
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.....
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.....
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.
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.
Some headmasters are good, some are ****e. Most have very little influence on anyone. They are a managerial role.
Sticks n stones etc.CG
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.
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!
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!
Last edited by langleybaston; 2nd Jul 2013 at 16:38. Reason: das finger
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
