Independent pay review
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charity???
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!
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!
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!
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......
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!
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......
Last edited by Biggus; 9th Dec 2013 at 11:03.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
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).
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
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
Gordon Brown MP, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - TheyWorkForYou
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.
..
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
Gordon Brown MP, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - TheyWorkForYou
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.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Dec 2013 at 11:41.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biggus
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.
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
SNP's Angus Robertson claims £80,000 for second home: MPs' expenses - Telegraph
Last edited by gr4techie; 9th Dec 2013 at 16:54.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salary for MP is poor and encourages expense fiddling.
Yes I know some went to clink as a token gesture.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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?
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?
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 10th Dec 2013 at 09:14.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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