Independent Pay Review
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32981549

"MPs are set to receive a £7,000 pay rise after the body responsible for setting their pay and expenses stuck by its recommendation for a 10% increase.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said there appeared to be no "material" reason to alter its proposal, first put forward in 2013.

Unless "new evidence" emerged, MPs' pay will rise from £67,060 to £74,000.

David Cameron opposes the move but has said he will not block the increase, saying MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa."



Remind me what MPs say about the AFPRB.

I could stomach a 10% rise if there were ~10% fewer of 'em.

Be about the only way the mil' will get more pay...

I understand there is a petition on the webthingy for those who are less than ecstatic about it.

MPs pay rise
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't actually think that GBP74,000 is a massive amount of money for the job that an MP does (or should do). The level of responsibility they have is pretty high and when compared to a 'civilian' job with a similar level they are probably woefully underpaid.

This doesn't alter the fact that I think most of them are a waste of good oxygen and that the timing of the rise is ridiculous to say the least. However, if we, as the tax paying public, want the right people to represent us then they need to be paid for the job they do. With this pay rise they are now roughly on a par with a top rate PAS Flt Lt Pilot. Is that really too much money in the grand scheme of things?!

Let's hope this doesn't lead to a pay cut for PAS Pilots!

BV:O

I would agree with Bob Viking, if it wasn't for the mahoosive allowances that supplement that basic salary.

i don't recall such benefits when I was serving ;)

I don't recall having a house paid for where I work whist I have another for my family wherever I would like to live. I don't recall being able to keep my family stable just because my job was elsewhere. I don't recall being able to claim for a raft of things including going to my family home whenever I wanted. That's just a few. Those benefits are worth a lot of money. They do not have to worry about a lot of "cost of living" expenses that I had to.

Sorry, not too much sympathy for a backbench MP' salary. Especially when they milk the system in a way that would put their employees in clink.

Expenses
 

I will admit to not being fully in the loop about all of the benefits they can claim. I believe though that the pay review also acknowledged that some of the so called benefits would be removed as a result of an increased salary. I could be way wide of the mark of course. You are absolutely right that their generous package is not exactly in line with that seen in other branches of government service.

Please don't take all of this to mean that I sympathise with MPs in any way and that I don't still hold them in the lowest regard as a proffession. I don't like them any more than the next man and I agree wholeheartedly that the allowances scheme is not exactly well aligned with what we have to put up with but we do very different jobs.

Of course I would love to have the same allowances that they get and I would love to be paid more. As awesome as I am though and as important as my job is I understand that I don't shoulder the same level of responsibility as an MP. I am also something of a realist.

Where I see them seriously lacking though is in leadership. On the whole I don't think they understand that this is a vital part of their job. To act as a voice (and therefore a leader) for many thousands of people.

I can see why it annoys people though. If they are allowed to have a truly independent pay review then so should every department. If they can disagree with the AFPRB and apply restrictions then why can't they do the same to their own? This is the bit that angers me far more than the amount of money they get paid.

Good leaders would accept poor pay as the price to pay for being a leader. They would then understand that the British public might hold them in slightly higher regard if they felt we were all in it together.

If the pay review body had acknowledged that they were underpaid and said that the pay rise would come once the government is operating with a budget surplus then I think that would have been the best solution for all concerned. It may even act as some sort of motivation do do the job right.

BV:8

Unlike the Force's position where even reasonable allowances, that just allowed one to reclaim minor expenses incurred in the course of duty, have been continually eroded, but not really replaced by any meaningful (10%) pay rise.

I don't think that justification runs.

CM
 

The issue of our allowances is a thread in it's own right. I hate what the MOD have done to them. Going away used to be fun but now it's a ballache just trying to get a fraction of the money you spent back.

The RCAF system by comparison is like ours used to be. You go away for three days you get three days worth of cash and you spend it how you wish. Although I've heard rumours that the senior echelons of the Canadian Military rather like the sound of our receipted actuals system!:eek:

It would be fun to watch an MP try to operate on our allowances for just a week though. That would definitely be the best way to get the system changed.

BV:ok:

Quite right, BV.

So, let's just remind ourselves how rubbish the system is...

2*. Courtney, go the meeting at Coningsy tomorrow morning for me. Here's my brief.

Courtney. Yes Sir.

Examines train timetable, given that it's already dark at High Wycombe. Call MT at Coningsy for collection from railhead, no answer. Call, MT at HW for self drive. All gone. OK, I'll drive. Wife has car for her work, I go on motorbike. Submit claim for mileage, rejected as MT and trains were available as alternatives to personal transport.

They were wrong on two counts: a) neither could be arranged when I was tasked, b) more than one alternative is bad grammar.

Oh, if only we all worked the hours that suit the money savers.

Do MPs have to put up with that? Do some of them impose such a system on us?

CM
 

I don't think we even need to dig that deeply to find examples. Unless I am way out of date or my memory is crap (not impossible if I'm honest) we are expected to spend no more than roughly GBP25 per day to feed ourselves when away from base and on duty in the UK. Bearing in mind duty of care to employees and recommended dietary habits exactly how and where is this feasible without frequenting establishments of the ilk of McDs?!

By comparison when deployed with the RCAF I get roughly CAD100 per day of subsistence and incidentals. I don't have to faff around with receipts either.

Oh God. You've started me off now. I'm back to the UK in a couple of months as well. I can feel the crewroom rants brewing already.

I'm hoping to buy a house as well. I wonder if the GBP5000 will cover the cost of stamp duty, estate agents fees and other selected costs from the sale and purchase of a house. I sincerely hope this has been increased in my absence and somebody forgot to tell me.

BV:mad:

It's OK. Your MP will feel your pain, BV. :ok:

In the real world, ot is increasingly rare to find employers who sign off on a daily rate of cash to be chucked at people for them to spend as they wish. Ultimately we are custodians of public money, we are obliged to try and spend it wisely and i dont think its unreasonable to claim actual expenses for what you actually spent.

Yes everyone has a story about an issue with receiepts, but this isnt a problem exclusive to the military and its just part of working life. At a time when military public image and awareness is declining thanks to the end of herrick, longing for the days of large chunks of cash just for going away to do your job, when everyone else has to provide reasonable receipts seems a good way to lose public sympathy pdq.

All very well Jim but it is hardly good custodianship of public money when the system sends out a bill for 2p (with 3 reminders since the victim had the nerve to be on Ops when the first iteration was sent). Incidentally , most airlines still have a "rates" system.

What is worse though is when the auditors can't even read their own rules properly and one ends up having to waste time resubmitting the claim -all due to their incompetence. I don't know what 2 auditors cost but a return to rates would save those salaries for a start.

Back in the mid-1970s, tempers were running rather high at RAF Brawdy - this was before all the pay rises of the following (Thatcher) years. So an MP was persuaded to come down from London to 'talk to the chaps' so that he could understand the problem more clearly.

This was when there was only one Severn Bridge and the M4 stopped at Newport, apart from a small bit new Swansea. So escaping from Wales took ages along the A40 and A48. So the MP didn't exactly get off to a good start when talking to the SNCOs when he announced that he didn't realise quite how far Brawdy was from Westminster..... Much murmuring from the assembled throng, then the fist question:

"Sir, can you tell us why you've come all this way at £(lots) per mile to tell us why we only get £(not very much) per mile for the same car?"
"Look, I asked for serious questions, not trivial ones"
"Well, sir, if you can't answer something as simple as that, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?"
:uhoh:

I appreciate we're not toing to agree on the issue of allowances versus cash rates. My own view, having experienced both systems is yes the jpa system can sometimes do something a bit odd, but its not that bad compared to some hr systems i've encountered elsewhere in government.

My big moral objection to rates is that too many people i knew saw them not as subsistence, but as additional salary. They'd get cheapest possible meal or bed, then use it to either buy beer or save it for later. Fine, they were quids in, but the t&s budgets took a hammering. i just dont think its reasonable in this day and age to justify an expenses system which is abused as a salary top up facility rather than regunding legitimate actual expenses.

CM,

While not defending MPs, I would point out that their job requires them to work at two places at once - yours did not.

If the RAF wanted you to work at Leuchars, you worked at Leuchars. If you elected to keep your family at Lincoln while you did so that was your choice, but you had to pay for it.

By contrast, an MP is elected to represent his constituents. An MP for Fife is required to work at Westminster, but also to be available in his constituency in Fife to meet his constituents. He is required to work in two places at once, quite far apart. The system of housing allowances was attempting to cater for this - note that MPs within a certain commutable distance of central London got no such support.



Having said that, they all beneath contempt in my opinion, and are largely self serving individuals I would quite happily see thrown on the scrap heap!

It's a very fair point, Biggus. Am I right in thinking that claiming for second mortgages was stopped around 2010? I recall it was proposed, that and recouping any profits from selling the place. Clearly, before that the UK tax-payers were funding ownership of a second house by supporting a second mortgage. That meant the MP make a profit from public money when they sold the property.

Do they have to rent now?

I take Biggus' point about "working" in two places.

Having just seen the possibility of Hyde Park Barracks being flogged off, why not keep it and turn it into a Mess for beanstealing MPs?

If your constituency is more than - say - 50 miles from Westminster, you qualify for a room - and PAYD facilities too of course!!

Any probs with that??