Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

MPs pay - here we go again

27 posts in this topic

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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) !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been happening for years, in 2010 the electorate had their chance to show how ###### off they were at this sort of thing, yet look at what happened. 88% of voters, voted for bigger troughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Guido: To be fair, some of them are  not claiming excessive amounts.

 

Adrian Bailey: Jill Bailey £9,999
Adrian Sanders: Alison Sanders £29,999
Aidan Burley: Jodie Jones £29,999
Alan Campbell: Jayne Campbell £4,999
Alan Haselhurst: Angela Margaret £44,999
Alan Meale: Diana Gilhespy £19,999
Albert Owen: Samuel Blyth £29,999
Alec Shelbrooke: Susan Shelbrooke £14,999
Alex Cunningham: John Cunningham £9,999
Alistair Burt: Eve Burt £39,999
Andrew George: Jill George £4,999
Andrew Miller: Frances Miller £29,999
Andrew Robathan: Rachel Robathan £24,999
Andrew Smith: Valerie Smith £14,999
Andrew Turner: Carole Dennett £19,999
Angela Smith: Steven Wilson £39,999
Angus MacNeil: Jane MacNeil £24,999
Angus Robertson: Carron Anderson £29,999
Annette Brooke: Eleanor Perera £4,999
Barry Gardiner: Caroline Smith £24,999
Ben Wallace: Liza Wallace £24,999
Bill Cash: Bridget Cash £29,999
Bob Ainsworth: Gloria J Ainsworth £14,999
Bob Blackman: Nicola Blackman £34,999
Brian Donohoe: Christine Donohoe £24,999
Caroline Flint: Phil Cole £39,999
Cathy Jamieson: Ian Sharpe £14,999
Charles Walker: Fiona Walker £29,999
Cheryl Gillan: John Leeming £19,999
Chris Grayling: Susan Grayling £39,999
Chris Ruane: Gillian Roberts £24,999
Chris Williamson: Margaret Amsbury £29,999
Christopher Chope: Christine Chope £49,999
Clive Betts: James Thomas £34,999
Craig Whittaker: Sophie Whittaker £19,999
Dan Jarvis: Rachel Brookes £9,999
Dan Rogerson: Heidi Rogerson £9,999
Daniel Poulter: Carol Poulter £39,999
David Amess: Julia Amess £19,999
David Burrowes: Rebecca Chard £39,999
David Crausby: Enid Crausby £39,999
David Davies: Aliz Harnisfoger-Davies £9,999
David Davis: Doreen Margery Davis £34,999
David Hamilton: Jean Hamilton £29,999
David Mundell: Oliver Mundell £29,999
Dennis Skinner: Lois Blasenheim £39,999
Derek Twigg: Mary Twigg £29,999
Desmond Swayne: Moira Swayne £9,999
Diana Johnson: Kevin Morton £39,999
Frank Roy: Ellen Roy £4,999
Gareth Johnson: Wendy Johnson £14,999
Gary Streeter: Janet Vanessa Streeter £14,999
Gavin Williamson: Joanne Williamson £4,999
George Howarth: Julie Howarth £34,999
George Young: Camilla Young £34,999
Glenda Jackson: Clare Fletcher £9,999
Glyn Davies: Bobbie Davies £19,999
Graham Brady: Victoria Lowther £44,999
Graham Evans: Cheryl Evans £24,999
Graham Stringer: Eleanor Carr £29,999
Graham Stuart: Niki Roberts £34,999
Graham Morris: Michelle Morris £14,999
Greg Knight: Janet Knight £24,999
Gregory Campbell: Frances Campbell £19,999
Helen Grant: Simon Grant £9,999
Helen Jones: Michael Vobe £39,999
Henry Bellingham: Emma Bellingham £14,999
Henry Smith: Jennifer Lois Millar-Smith £24,999
Hilary Benn: Sally Clark £24,999
Hugo Swire: Alexandra Sasha Swire £34,999
Hywel Francis: Mair Francis £44,999
Iain McKenzie: Alison McKenzie £4,999
Iain Wright: Tiffany Wright £29,999
Ian Davidson: Morag MacKinnon £34,999
Ian Lavery: Hilary Lavery £24,999
Ian Liddell-Grainger: Jill Liddell-Grainger £34,999
Ian Lucas: Noah Lucas £9,999
Ian Murray: Hannah Woolfson £9,999
Ian Swales: Anne Marie Swales £9,999
Jackie Doyle-Price: Mark Steven Coxshall £19,999
James Gray: Phillipa Gray £34,999
James Paice: Ava Paice £14,999
Jeffry Donaldson: Eleanor Donaldson £24,999
Jim Dobbin: Mary Dobbin £34,999
Jim Hood: Marion Stewart Hood £24,999
Jim Sheridan: Joanne Riley £29,999
Joe Benton: Doris Benton £24,999
John Healey: Jackie Bate £14,999
John Mann: Joanna White £34,999
John Robertson: Laura Robertson £4,999
John Stevenson: Tracy Nixon £9,999
Julian Brazier: Katharine Elizabeth Brazier £19,999
Julie Elliott: Miles Elliott £24,999
Karen Bradley: Neil Bradley £44,999
Karl McCartney: Cordelia McCartney £39,999
Kelvin Hopkins: Patricia Hopkins £14,999
Kevin Barron: Andree Deane £14,999
Laurence Robertson: Anne Marie Adams £44,999
Lee Scott: Estelle Scott £34,999
Liam Byrne: Sarah Harnett £9,999
Linda Riordan: Stephen Roberts £39,999
Lindsay Hoyle: Catherine Hoyle £14,999
Malcolm Bruce: Rosemary Bruce £35,000
Margaret Beckett: Lionel Beckett £30,000
Mark Garnier: Caroline Garnier £40,000
Mark Pritchard: Sondra Spaeth £45,000
Mark Simmonds: Lizbeth Simmonds £25,000
Mark Tami: Sally Tami £20,000
Martin Caton: Bethan Caton £35,000
Martin Vickers: Ann Vickers £10,000
Meg Munn: Dennis Bates £25,000
Menzies Campbell: Elspeth Cambpell £30,000, Donald Lothian £25,000
Michael Dugher: Joanna Dugher £35,000
Michael Fallon: Wendy Fallon £20,000
Michael McCann: Tracey Ann McCann £35,000
Michael Moore: Alison Moore £20,000
Mike Penning; Angela Penning £35,000
Nadine Dorries: Phillipa Dorries £45,000, Jennifer Dorries £35,000
Neil Parish: Susan Parish £20,000
Nigel Adams: Claire Adams £20,000
Oliver Heald: Christine Heald £40,000
Owen Paterson: Rose Paterson £35,000
Patrick McLoughlin: Lynn McLoughlin £40,000
Patrick Mercer: Susan Gray £40,000
Paul Beresford: Julie Beresford £30,000
Paul Farrelly: Victoria Perry £5,000
Paul Flynn: Lynne Flynn £20,000
Peter Aldous: Mark Bee £10,000
Peter Bone: Jeanette Bone £50,000
Phil Wilson: Margaret Brown £40,000
Philip Davies: Deborah Davies £25,000
Phillip Lee: Anthony Lee £10,000
Rehman Chishti: Nusrat Ahmed £25,000
Richard Ottaway: Nicola Ottaway £15,000
Richard Shepherd: Davida Catleugh £40,000
Robert Buckland: Sian Reed £5,000
Robert Goodwill: Maureen Goodwill £20,000
Roger Gale: Susan Gale £40,000
Ronnie Campbell: Deirdre Campbell £15,000
Russell Brown: Gillian Carey £25,000
Sharon Hodgson: Alan Hodgson £35,000
Simon Danczuk: Karen Burke £30,000
Simon Hart: Abigail Hart £25,000
Stephen Crabb: Beatrice Crabb £20,000
Stephen Gilbert: Jaqueline Bull £15,000
Stephen Hammond: Sally Hammond £45,000
Stephen Pound: Maggie Pound £25,000
Teresa Pearce: Paul O’Neill £10,000
Tim Loughton: Elizabeth Loughton £10,000
Tom Harris: Carolyn Harris £35,000
Tony Lloyd: Angharad Lloyd £10,000
Valerie Vaz: Paul Townsend £40,000
William McCrea: Robert Watters £25,000
Yvonne Fovargue: Paul Kenny £25,000

£4 million-a-year of your money goes straight into their pockets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it depends what they are doing for the money.

None of them seem majorly excessive for a full time job on London so I think you have to look at work done rather than just money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it depends what they are doing for the money.

None of them seem majorly excessive for a full time job on London so I think you have to look at work done rather than just money.

The issue are have is more to do with whether they were the best candidates for the job and how well advertised the roles were. It stinks of nepotism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it depends what they are doing for the money.

None of them seem majorly excessive for a full time job on London so I think you have to look at work done rather than just money.

 

Given that MPs work for less than half a year you need to pro rata it out if you're going to do it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.