Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

MPs pay - here we go again


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:49 PM

MPs' pay: Watchdog calls for rise of more than £6,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-23262503

 

No. Just, no. :angry:

 

Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said: "The history of MPs' pay and pensions is a catalogue of fixes, fudges and failures to act. The package we put forward today represents the end of the era of MPs' remuneration being settled by MPs themselves.
"For the first time, an independent body will decide what MPs should receive. We will do so in full view, and after consultation with the public."
Sir Ian told BBC Radio 5 Live MPs should be treated like "modern professionals" and part of the package was a "radical proposal" to introduce an annual "report card" to show the public what MPs did for their money.
He said the pay rise proposal was "fair" because MPs' pay had "fallen back" over the years and they needed to properly rewarded for the job they did, adding that the expenses scandal had been the result of too much pay restraint.

 

Sir Ian Kennedy, whoever the hell he is, lives on another planet, IMO. The expenses scandal was as a result of pure greed and in some cases outright criminality. It is untenable to preach pay restraint for the masses at the same time as agreeing a hefty pay rise for their representatives. It doesn't matter what they or some supposedly 'independent' committee thinks they are 'worth', they have to be seen to lead by example. Lots of people in this country do valuable work and are paid less than they are 'worth' for it, but the plebs just have to lump it in order to hang on to their jobs.

 

Sir Ian is paid £700 a day and works on average two days a week, which he said added up to an annual salary of between £60,000 and the "high 70s".

 

No wonder he has no idea what's going on in the real world.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#2 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,809 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

MP's should be paid a basic salary of £100k per year, but with the proviso that anyone who enters Parliament has to relinquish all other jobs/directorships/consultancies and be a full-time MP working a mandatory number of hours a week.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#3 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

MP's should be paid a basic salary of £100k per year, but with the proviso that anyone who enters Parliament has to relinquish all other jobs/directorships/consultancies and be a full-time MP working a mandatory number of hours a week.

 

They get paid enough as it is IMO.

 

If it isn't enough for any of them, they can take their own advice to other people and find a better job that does pay them what they think they're worth. They'll find that pretty hard though. Much harder than being an MP.

 

None of them would be missed. Not one. And there'd be no shortage of people willing to take their place either.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#4 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,663 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 03:40 PM

I support the idea of  a benchmarked pay rise for MPs, along with equalisation of their total package. Redundancy pay if kicked out in line with the statutory scheme that applies generally,  only expenses reimbursed if they are fully receipted, wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for their role as an MP and in line with the amounts that apply to us as accepted by  R and C and a contributory money-purchase pension scheme.



#5 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:13 PM

They get paid enough as it is IMO.

 

If it isn't enough for any of them, they can take their own advice to other people and find a better job that does pay them what they think they're worth. They'll find that pretty hard though. Much harder than being an MP.

 

None of them would be missed. Not one. And there'd be no shortage of people willing to take their place either.

They don't though.  £65k is about what a junior team leader in IT gets in the City.  I'd rank a back-bench MP not on a major committee to be mid-ranking manager/consultant level, that's getting on to the £100k mark in the City.  A back-bench MP on a major committee or chairing one is into the senior manager/consultant level, that's getting onto the £125K+ mark in the City.  Then you get onto Ministers, I'd assume that's about director level in a private company, a low- to mid-ranking IT director gets over £150k and pushing to £250k+ for even mid-sized companies.

 

It depends on what you want.  If you want to attract ambitious, high-quality candidates as MPs then you need to offer better than they can get as a middling employee hired in central London.  There's a reason why a good number of MPs are independently wealthy or actively look for external income.

 

Pay them a good salary for their real responsibilities, I'd say about £100k for a back-bencher with no major committee responsibilities.  In return, ban them from undertaking any external paid work.  Also, and very importantly, make all expenses and benefits subject to the same taxation rules as the rest of us.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#6 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 04:29 PM

They don't though.  £65k is about what a junior team leader in IT gets in the City.  I'd rank a back-bench MP not on a major committee to be mid-ranking manager/consultant level, that's getting on to the £100k mark in the City.  A back-bench MP on a major committee or chairing one is into the senior manager/consultant level, that's getting onto the £125K+ mark in the City.  Then you get onto Ministers, I'd assume that's about director level in a private company, a low- to mid-ranking IT director gets over £150k and pushing to £250k+ for even mid-sized companies.

 

It depends on what you want.  If you want to attract ambitious, high-quality candidates as MPs then you need to offer better than they can get as a middling employee hired in central London.  There's a reason why a good number of MPs are independently wealthy or actively look for external income.

 

Pay them a good salary for their real responsibilities, I'd say about £100k for a back-bencher with no major committee responsibilities.  In return, ban them from undertaking any external paid work.  Also, and very importantly, make all expenses and benefits subject to the same taxation rules as the rest of us.

 

Sorry but I completely disagree with the argument put forward that more money would mean better MPs.

 

MPs ought to exist in the real world, the world of the majority of people who they are there to (allegedly) represent, not the world of artificially inflated salaries of executive directors of this and that. It requires no training whatsoever to become an MP. Some are good, some are dreadful, but they all get paid the same regardless. If they want to get rich, don't become an MP. Simple as that. If they're in it for the money, they're not fit to be an MP in the first place.

 

Pay them more and you won't attract better people, you'll attract even more of exactly the wrong kind of people IMO.

 

MPs don't have to be experts and shouldn't be remunerated as such. They have (highly rewarded) civil servants to advise and guide them. They are there to provide the democratic control, the link between the machine of government and the plebs whose lives it affects on a daily basis.

 

We should be aiming to attract more people from regular working backgrounds into Parliament, for whom the current rate of remuneration would seem like a goldrush anyway, not more shiny suited replicants from planet politics who think they deserve to earn far more than the majority of people who put them there.

 

When we are bombarded daily with news of cuts, cuts, cuts and the mantra that 'the country can't afford it', absolutely the last item on the agenda for an increase in public spending should be the wage packets of the occupants of the Palace of Westminster. To their credit, many MPs have already declared that this pay award is unjustifiable in the current economic climate, and they are dead right on that score.

 

Honestly, I get really angry about this subject (as you may be able to tell) !


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#7 Shadow45

Shadow45
  • Coach
  • 4,847 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:46 PM

Viva la revolucion!



#8 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,606 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:21 PM

I think they should earn £100,000 a year and undertake not to have any parallel jobs. They should also not be allowed to stand unless they had "credits" earned by working in the real world, outside the law and party political organisations.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#9 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:36 PM

They get paid enough as it is IMO.

 

If it isn't enough for any of them, they can take their own advice to other people and find a better job that does pay them what they think they're worth. They'll find that pretty hard though. Much harder than being an MP.

 

None of them would be missed. Not one. And there'd be no shortage of people willing to take their place either.

No, there's plenty of independents out there, all waiting to be voted for. Yet in the wake of the expenses scandal at the last election the 3 main parties hoovered up over 24m of the 27m votes cast.

 

There's, by my reckoning, 3m voters who have some sort of complaint, the rest, they got exactly what they voted for.



#10 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,456 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:48 AM

Fleet Street Fox: nail on head


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#11 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,869 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:52 AM

 

She is right.

 

But salaries and expenses paid to journalists, especially those with their own column, dwarf those paid to MPs.

 

So she should also STFU some times.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#12 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,456 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:02 AM

She is right.

 

But salaries and expenses paid to journalists, especially those with their own column, dwarf those paid to MPs.

 

So she should also STFU some times.

 

Her pay doesn't come out of the public purse, if her employers feel the need to pay her well, that's their business. I bet she doesn't also decide that her fellow employees have to make do with a 1% pay rise (at best), while engineering a process that will give her an 11% rise at the same time.  


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#13 chuffer

chuffer
  • Coach
  • 3,373 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:32 AM

Whether they are currently appropriately remunerated or not, now (of all times) is not the right time to be applying a blanket payrise for MPs. It would make sense to discuss it if/when we are out of this "deep recession" that their media outlets continue to remind us of on a daily basis

 

Whilst some MPs have been quick to echo the above sentiment, some are using the "oh it's not our decision, our hands are tied" line which is hard to believe really.......just how "independent" is an independent review committee?



#14 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,589 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:54 AM

Whether they are currently appropriately remunerated or not, now (of all times) is not the right time to be applying a blanket payrise for MPs. It would make sense to discuss it if/when we are out of this "deep recession" that their media outlets continue to remind us of on a daily basis

 

Whilst some MPs have been quick to echo the above sentiment, some are using the "oh it's not our decision, our hands are tied" line which is hard to believe really.......just how "independent" is an independent review committee?

I remember more than a few times the governments of the last few decades ignoring independent pay assessments for the armed forces as "unaffordable".  There was one last decade, can't remember when, where the independent assessment was a decent pay rise for the army to make up for years of under-payment of increases and it was rejected out of hand as not appropriate.  I believe the pay review committee is a bit less "independent" these days.

 

Then there was the issue with army pensions, probably with other pensions as well but my narrow self-interest makes me remember that, where in one year we got 0% rise despite 2% general inflation due to the way the system worked but the next year was supposed to more than make up for it, come the next year the government reneged on its promise as they wouldn't give anyone an above inflation rise in pension.

 

Same with civil servants pay, I think it wasn't more than a few years ago that an independent review suggested large pay rises for senior civil servants and it was knocked back by the government as inappropriate.

 

It's quite convenient for some MPs to now say that the decision is out of their hands.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#15 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,701 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:54 PM

We are about to be caned in the Armed Forces regarding our terms, conditions and pensions. But there will be no pay rise to offset those changes. No doubt similar things are happening elsewhere in the public sector but MPs deserve a pay rise?

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#16 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,606 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:34 PM

Some MP's have a double parliamentary income:

 

 

http://order-order.c...436c4-229900461


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#17 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,890 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:52 PM

The biggest concern for me is that people who are paid to run the country happily have 2nd or even 3rd jobs and countless other business interests. I assume their parliamentary jobs are classed as full time so you have to question where they are finding the time to work on these other roles.

 

I appreciate the wage comparison with city workers, but I would imagine those city workers put in a hell of a lot of hours to command those salaries and would not be doing it as pretty much a part time role.


28m391z.jpg


#18 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,869 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 07:08 AM

Some MP's have a double parliamentary income:

 

 

http://order-order.c...436c4-229900461

Being reported that Dorries employs two of her family members on 35k taxpayer-funded salaries.

 

Guido likes Dorries though so he seems less bothered by that than he'd usually be.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#19 bearman

bearman
  • Coach
  • 2,236 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 08:50 AM

Abolish the House of Commons. Have an appointed House Of Lords, the appointee's to be selected by an online vote by the electorate of people that have shewn some integrity.
Let the House of Lords debate the issues on National television then let the electorate vote online. That way democracy is served.
Ron Banks
Bears and Barrow

#20 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 10:11 AM

Abolish the House of Commons. Have an appointed House Of Lords, the appointee's to be selected by an online vote by the electorate of people that have shewn some integrity.
Let the House of Lords debate the issues on National television then let the electorate vote online. That way democracy is served.

 

 

Errrr...No


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users