MP's Pay
 

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?

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:

Leeches and oxygen thieves
 

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! :*

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.

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

Sadly, more than this I suspect.

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:

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.

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.

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

To the barricades:E

Agreed with everything Wyler said... apart from this bit:
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.

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.

I agree. Double the pay but half the numbers.

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.

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".

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

:rolleyes:

'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.

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.

"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.

And that is indeed puerile nonsense.