10% pay rise for MPs

[John Drake]

Ipsa goes ahead with 10% pay rise for MPs
Parliamentary watchdog pushes on with increase that dwarfs 1% rise for other public sector workers, despite opposition from some MPs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/16/ipsa-goes-ahead-with-10-pay-rise-for-mps

[GeordieSaint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33552499

 

IPSA chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said that MPs' pay had been a "toxic" issue "which had been ducked for decades".

 

He said the pay rise would not cost any money because it was being combined with cuts to expenses, pension and severance payments for MPs.

[Phil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33552499

 

IPSA chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said that MPs' pay had been a "toxic" issue "which had been ducked for decades".

 

He said the pay rise would not cost any money because it was being combined with cuts to expenses, pension and severance payments for MPs.

 

 

Ah well no problem then....

 

oh wait... "severance pay"? you're having a bleeding bubble aintcha?

[John Drake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33552499

 

IPSA chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said that MPs' pay had been a "toxic" issue "which had been ducked for decades".

 

He said the pay rise would not cost any money because it was being combined with cuts to expenses, pension and severance payments for MPs.

 

Empty justification. That's exactly the kind of stuff that happens to other workers WITHOUT getting a 10% pay rise to compensate.

[John Drake]

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-emergency-uk-live-prospect-of-strikes-looms-after-public-sector-pay-cap-prompts-fury-from-unions-10376024.html

Mr Osborne said there was a “simple trade-off between pay and jobs in many public services”.
“I know there has already been a period of pay restraint. But we said last autumn there we would need to find commensurate savings in this parliament,” he said.
“So, to ensure we have public services we can afford and to protect more jobs, we will continue recent public sector pay awards with a rise of one per cent per year for the next four years.”

Health unions took industrial action last year over the Government’s decision to ignore independent pay review bodies’ recommendation of an across the board one per cent pay rise for NHS staff. Teachers also staged a series of one day strikes during the last Parliament in protest at pension and pay cuts and their workload.

[GeordieSaint]

Ah well no problem then....

 

Never said it wasn't a problem; highlighting it isn't in real terms a real 10% pay rise when you take into account the other factors.

[GeordieSaint]

That's exactly the kind of stuff that happens to other workers WITHOUT getting a 10% pay rise to compensate.

 

I am fully aware considering I have had my pension change this year and lots of the overall package offered to me on joining reduced.

[Red Willow]

I've had pension changes and I am yet to receive the 1% that was due in August 2014, they are still in discussions about it. This year's pay deal is now due in a matter of weeks and I have no idea when that will even start to be discussed.

 

Yet MPs get 10% of course we are all in this together, we have had pay restraint for 5 years. wonder what my pay cut is in real terms?

[Griff9of13]

How dare our MPs take money from us for THIS?, Fleet Street Fox

[The Future is League]

Whether Dave and Gideon like it or not the precedent has been set.

[Griff9of13]

Yes, it must be a real struggle, the food bank is this way --> 

 

Tory minister says £90,000 salary left him "counting the pennies" 

[ckn]

Yes, it must be a real struggle, the food bank is this way --> 

 

Tory minister says £90,000 salary left him "counting the pennies" 

An army Colonel has a huge level of responsibility and accountability, proven over a number of different settings and through promotion.  An MP just needs to turn up to vote occasionally when it suits them or when the Whip gives them a three-liner.  There's a reason why Ministers of State get a hefty additional salary, they actually have to work for a living.

[JonM]

I'll bite then, especially as I've had this debate before :-)

 

I think MP's salaries are w-a-a-a-y too low.  The salary of £67k is quite a bit less than most of the electronics engineers and computer programmers I work with get per year, let alone those of their managers. This is for an enjoyable, relatively safe & stress-free Mon-Fri 9-5 job, no press intrusion in your personal life, no random nutters haranguing you in the office, no threat of terrorists trying to kill you, no need to work or live in one of the most expensive places in the country/world. No sensible doctor, solicitor, accountant or any other middle-class professional is going to take a hefty pay cut for a job like that. So parliament mostly attracts the already rich, the slightly mad and those using it get to more lucrative positions.

 

Of course, the actual salary is well under half the package. You get a six-figure annual sum to run your office (hence so many MPs employing family members). You get significant amounts of money towards housing  (hence so many MPs doing dodgy things with 2nd homes). You get big amounts in expenses (see scandals of a few years ago). You get lots of lobbying, hospitality and free trips (see every issue of Private Eye). You get lots of contacts & power enabling you take to related positions in industry, often with what looks to everyone else like a gross conflict of interest (again, see most issues of Private Eye).

 

Better to have a lot fewer of them, pay them properly, make it properly full-time - and clamp down on the perks and abuses.

[Bigal02]

I'll bite then, especially as I've had this debate before :-)

 

I think MP's salaries are w-a-a-a-y too low.  The salary of £67k is quite a bit less than most of the electronics engineers and computer programmers I work with get per year, let alone those of their managers. This is for an enjoyable, relatively safe & stress-free Mon-Fri 9-5 job, no press intrusion in your personal life, no random nutters haranguing you in the office, no threat of terrorists trying to kill you, no need to work or live in one of the most expensive places in the country/world. No sensible doctor, solicitor, accountant or any other middle-class professional is going to take a hefty pay cut for a job like that. So parliament mostly attracts the already rich, the slightly mad and those using it get to more lucrative positions.

 

Of course, the actual salary is well under half the package. You get a six-figure annual sum to run your office (hence so many MPs employing family members). You get significant amounts of money towards housing  (hence so many MPs doing dodgy things with 2nd homes). You get big amounts in expenses (see scandals of a few years ago). You get lots of lobbying, hospitality and free trips (see every issue of Private Eye). You get lots of contacts & power enabling you take to related positions in industry, often with what looks to everyone else like a gross conflict of interest (again, see most issues of Private Eye).

 

Better to have a lot fewer of them, pay them properly, make it properly full-time - and clamp down on the perks and abuses.

I'll bite back if I may?

 

On your first point, electronic engineers  and computer programmers have to earn qualifications to achieve their respective positions and salary, MP's do not. Quote,  "This is for an enjoyable, relatively safe & stress-free Mon-Fri 9-5 job". Unquote. By "safe" do you mean not dangerous or do you mean secure?  If you mean dangerous, then MP's are quite well guarded and I can't remember an MP being injured in the line of duty.  If you mean job security then MP's win this hands down.  With the introduction of fixed term parliaments.  MP's cannot be sacked/ -dismissed for almost any reason, including theft, (unless imprisoned for more than 1 year), incompetence, non-attendance of parliament, (again, unless for more than 1year), changing political sides during a parliament, (flouting the will of the electorate who gave them a majority).  There can't be many electronic engineers  and computer programmers who will keep their job, guaranteed for 5 years,  if they only show up for 1 day a year!

 

When the part of the job description is to meet "random nutters", I think that wouldn't be too different from the average day of the "sensible doctor, solicitor, accountant or any other middle-class professional" you cite. IMHO most MP's actively court the press and the media, and yes, newspapers and TV do look out for hypocrisy, and "Do as I say, not as I do" Will be reported!

 

The terms and conditions of employment are not secret so hopefully, prospective MP's should have a decent idea of the earning potential of the job.  Not forgetting all of those that continue to work in their old job as well as securing part-time positions on the boards of large companies.

 

Finally, I think it would be interesting to find out how many MP's of the 650 took a pay cut and how many got an increase in salary to become MP's.  All I can say is very few quit after 1 or 2 terms of office and most do so after they've got the 20 years service in to gat a FULL pension.  How many of the professions stated by JohnM, or indeed any other jobs offer a full pension after only 20 years service? 

[Phil]

I'll bite then, especially as I've had this debate before :-)

 

I think MP's salaries are w-a-a-a-y too low.  The salary of £67k is quite a bit less than most of the electronics engineers and computer programmers I work with get per year, let alone those of their managers. This is for an enjoyable, relatively safe & stress-free Mon-Fri 9-5 job, no press intrusion in your personal life, no random nutters haranguing you in the office, no threat of terrorists trying to kill you, no need to work or live in one of the most expensive places in the country/world. No sensible doctor, solicitor, accountant or any other middle-class professional is going to take a hefty pay cut for a job like that. So parliament mostly attracts the already rich, the slightly mad and those using it get to more lucrative positions.

 

Of course, the actual salary is well under half the package. You get a six-figure annual sum to run your office (hence so many MPs employing family members). You get significant amounts of money towards housing  (hence so many MPs doing dodgy things with 2nd homes). You get big amounts in expenses (see scandals of a few years ago). You get lots of lobbying, hospitality and free trips (see every issue of Private Eye). You get lots of contacts & power enabling you take to related positions in industry, often with what looks to everyone else like a gross conflict of interest (again, see most issues of Private Eye).

 

Better to have a lot fewer of them, pay them properly, make it properly full-time - and clamp down on the perks and abuses.

 

 

 

Believe it or not John I don't radically disagree with you, BUT, when the rest of us are having benefits etc capped or slashed, when many of us are being told wage rises are capped at 1% for 5 years, the "we're all in together" mob give themselves 10% .

 

I know there's a pay review body, but effectively they're giving themselves a decent hike on a pretty decent pay rate (I'm well paid but they get roughly twice what I get) and us rude mechanicals have to grin and bear it.

 

if you believe in any notion of "fairness" this isn't it.

[JonM]

I'll bite back if I may?

 

On your first point, electronic engineers  and computer programmers have to earn qualifications to achieve their respective positions and salary, MP's do not. Quote,  "This is for an enjoyable, relatively safe & stress-free Mon-Fri 9-5 job". Unquote. By "safe" do you mean not dangerous or do you mean secure?  If you mean dangerous, then MP's are quite well guarded and I can't remember an MP being injured in the line of duty.  If you mean job security then MP's win this hands down.  With the introduction of fixed term parliaments.  MP's cannot be sacked/ -dismissed for almost any reason, including theft, (unless imprisoned for more than 1 year), incompetence, non-attendance of parliament, (again, unless for more than 1year), changing political sides during a parliament, (flouting the will of the electorate who gave them a majority).  There can't be many electronic engineers  and computer programmers who will keep their job, guaranteed for 5 years,  if they only show up for 1 day a year!

 

When the part of the job description is to meet "random nutters", I think that wouldn't be too different from the average day of the "sensible doctor, solicitor, accountant or any other middle-class professional" you cite. IMHO most MP's actively court the press and the media, and yes, newspapers and TV do look out for hypocrisy, and "Do as I say, not as I do" Will be reported!

 

The terms and conditions of employment are not secret so hopefully, prospective MP's should have a decent idea of the earning potential of the job.  Not forgetting all of those that continue to work in their old job as well as securing part-time positions on the boards of large companies.

 

Finally, I think it would be interesting to find out how many MP's of the 650 took a pay cut and how many got an increase in salary to become MP's.  All I can say is very few quit after 1 or 2 terms of office and most do so after they've got the 20 years service in to gat a FULL pension.  How many of the professions stated by JohnM, or indeed any other jobs offer a full pension after only 20 years service? 

 

Don't disagree with most of your points - the pension pot in particular is a very good one, but I think many of them support my point of view.  The way it's set up at the moment is that the headline salary for an MP is not competitive with private industry or public sector, but there are loads of very valuable hidden perks/opportunities for MPs to enrich themselves. 

 

I'd rather have MPs paid competitively, doing proper full-time work (i.e parliament should operate in office hours for the most part and MPs shouldn't be allowed other jobs) and the various rules enforced properly.

[JonM]

Believe it or not John I don't radically disagree with you, BUT, when the rest of us are having benefits etc capped or slashed, when many of us are being told wage rises are capped at 1% for 5 years, the "we're all in together" mob give themselves 10% .

 

I know there's a pay review body, but effectively they're giving themselves a decent hike on a pretty decent pay rate (I'm well paid but they get roughly twice what I get) and us rude mechanicals have to grin and bear it.

 

if you believe in any notion of "fairness" this isn't it.

 

That's maybe a part of a wider (and serious) problem in the UK/US (not so much elsewhere) where the differential between the top paid and the rest has grown hugely? I don't think MPs salaries look excessive compared to many company directors, or even a lot of senior public sector jobs?

 

(JonM, not JohnM - should've chosen my username more carefully)

[John Drake]

Believe it or not John I don't radically disagree with you, BUT, when the rest of us are having benefits etc capped or slashed, when many of us are being told wage rises are capped at 1% for 5 years, the "we're all in together" mob give themselves 10% .

 

I know there's a pay review body, but effectively they're giving themselves a decent hike on a pretty decent pay rate (I'm well paid but they get roughly twice what I get) and us rude mechanicals have to grin and bear it.

 

if you believe in any notion of "fairness" this isn't it.

 

This. A thousand times this.

 

MPs are not the same as ordinary - or even extraordinary - employees doing a day to day job, with their wages deserving comparison to those at the top of the scale.

 

As lawmakers and elected holders of public office, they have a duty to set an example.

 

In preaching austerity to others, at the very least that means accepting the need for it themselves. Any that don't understand that are in the wrong job anyway.

[Ramite]

TBF John some have already said they will give the raise to charity.

[John Drake]

TBF John some have already said they will give the raise to charity.

 

And many won't.

[Saintslass]

Believe it or not John I don't radically disagree with you, BUT, when the rest of us are having benefits etc capped or slashed, when many of us are being told wage rises are capped at 1% for 5 years, the "we're all in together" mob give themselves 10% .

 

I know there's a pay review body, but effectively they're giving themselves a decent hike on a pretty decent pay rate (I'm well paid but they get roughly twice what I get) and us rude mechanicals have to grin and bear it.

 

if you believe in any notion of "fairness" this isn't it.

Except the MPs did not 'give themselves' anything. IPSA is independent, its existence backed up by legislation. 

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to give MPs more of a salary and less of the perks, lowering the temptation to and/or ability of MPs to get into bother at the taxpayers' expense.  This pay rise is cost neutral to the taxpayer because of the reductions in the perks and pension that are also part of the deal so nobody has a basis to complain since taxpayers won't be paying anything more towards the funding of MPs than they were before the pay rise was announced.

[Phil]

Except the MPs did not 'give themselves' anything. IPSA is independent, its existence backed up by legislation.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to give MPs more of a salary and less of the perks, lowering the temptation to and/or ability of MPs to get into bother at the taxpayers' expense. This pay rise is cost neutral to the taxpayer because of the reductions in the perks and pension that are also part of the deal so nobody has a basis to complain since taxpayers won't be paying anything more towards the funding of MPs than they were before the pay rise was announced.

Yes they did, the appointments to IPSA were made by the govt and as usual the positions were farmed out to their cronies.

Strange that "Dave" felt ok at overruling the public workers pay rises but now claims he can't affect this one.

Disengenuous is the word I believe, or liar as we say in working class circles.

"Nobody has a basis for complaint" you're a giggle you are

[The Future is League]

Yes they did, the appointments to IPSA were made by the govt and as usual the positions were farmed out to their cronies.

Strange that "Dave" felt ok at overruling the public workers pay rises but now claims he can't affect this one.

Disengenuous is the word I believe, or liar as we say in working class circles.

"Nobody has a basis for complaint" you're a giggle you are

One rule for the workers another rule for Dave and friends.

[ckn]

Thanks to the government (and UNISON's short-sightedness) I get neither the 1% pay rise nor a progression this financial year.  My benchmarked salary against an equivalent private sector role is 60% lower.  I have 10 direct reports (each with complex roles) and one of my direct reports has 16 of his own with the others having a good number each, this is again significantly over the private sector average of 5 direct reports to a manager.  Yet the government saw fit to overrule the independent review body that I get a massive 1% pay rise, they also have ruled that they're going to ignore their own published five year forward view by limiting my pay rise to a maximum of 1% for the next four years regardless of inflation or RPI.

 

A backbench MP got a 10% pay rise for nothing more in terms of responsibility.

 

I'm not really complaining too much for myself, I knew what I was getting into by sacrificing my private sector earnings for the public good of working for the NHS.  What I am complaining about is that MPs are just as much public servants as I am and should abide by the same rules they set for every other one.

[gazza77]

Thanks to the government (and UNISON's short-sightedness) I get neither the 1% pay rise nor a progression this financial year.  My benchmarked salary against an equivalent private sector role is 60% lower.  I have 10 direct reports (each with complex roles) and one of my direct reports has 16 of his own with the others having a good number each, this is again significantly over the private sector average of 5 direct reports to a manager.  Yet the government saw fit to overrule the independent review body that I get a massive 1% pay rise, they also have ruled that they're going to ignore their own published five year forward view by limiting my pay rise to a maximum of 1% for the next four years regardless of inflation or RPI.

 

A backbench MP got a 10% pay rise for nothing more in terms of responsibility.

 

I'm not really complaining too much for myself, I knew what I was getting into by sacrificing my private sector earnings for the public good of working for the NHS.  What I am complaining about is that MPs are just as much public servants as I am and should abide by the same rules they set for every other one.

Interestingly, my NHS employer decided to ignore the national guidance and implement a local pay scheme, bringing those at the lowest points up to the current "living wage" level and giving the opportunity to have either performance based progression, a 1% uplift, or both to all staff, irrespective of where they are on the pay scale. I suspect we'll be one of the few that did something like this however.