10% pay rise for MPs

[ckn]

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.

As we're directly governed by NHS England we had no choice about it.

[gazza77]

As we're directly governed by NHS England we had no choice about it.

We're an FT, so one of the few "freedoms" we do have.

[back to the future]

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

Surely Griff will find a snippet of who does and who does'nt

Personally i dont know why we need 650 Mps,

But getting back to salaries the leader of my labour town council took £120k in salary/expenses last year,is that the norm if so thats a joke

[back to the future]

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

You do know the IPSA was set-up under Gordon Browns leadership?

[ckn]

You do know the IPSA was set-up under Gordon Browns leadership?

Yep and unchanged, blocked by all three main parties twice during the last Parliament from challenge by backbencher motions and Private Members' bills.

 

IPSA board contains by statute an ex-MP, an ex-judge, someone who could be a statutory auditor and three lay members as selected by the Speaker.  About as truly independent as the Speaker governing Commons standards...

[back to the future]

Yep and unchanged, blocked by all three main parties twice during the last Parliament from challenge by backbencher motions and Private Members' bills.

 

IPSA board contains by statute an ex-MP, an ex-judge, someone who could be a statutory auditor and three lay members as selected by the Speaker.  About as truly independent as the Speaker governing Commons standards...

So its not a tory based committee thats some are making out

[Ramite]

Surely Griff will find a snippet of who does and who does'nt

Personally i dont know why we need 650 Mps,

But getting back to salaries the leader of my labour town council took £120k in salary/expenses last year,is that the norm if so thats a joke

Leader as in political leader or do you mean chief executive ?

[JohnM]

Cost neutral..

We are going to have fewer MPs soon, in any case

Various "allowances" for MPs have been reduced.

MPs Pay has been in effect frozen for fear of adverse public reaction for many years.

Nevertheless, what a stupid thing to do at this time.

[Bigal02]

Cost neutral..

We are going to have fewer MPs soon, in any case

Various "allowances" for MPs have been reduced.

MPs Pay has been in effect frozen for fear of adverse public reaction for many years.

Nevertheless, what a stupid thing to do at this time.

Frozen for many years eh?  Let's have a look shall we?

 

a quick check shows that in 2005, an MP's basic pay was £59,095.00.  This rose to £67.060 in 2014.  (that's an increase of £7,965.00).  It is now going up to 74,000.00!

 

This is an increase of £6940.00 in one year or £14905.00 increase in 10 years!!  I'd wager that ckn would exchange his guaranteed 1% rise for a pay freeze like that!

 

Remember, there are no changes to hours worked, productivity, conditions etc. No negotiating.  This is just extra money- plain and simple.

 

They can even abstain from voting, which to me is their raison d'etre.  I know they may work in their surgeries to help constituents, but a lot of this could be done by solicitors or even Citizens Advice.  Only MP's can vote to change the laws of the land.

 

Their whole purpose is to vote, not abstain!  How many of the people visiting this site can refuse to do a job simply because they don't want to do it?   I would argue that  when they abstain it is because they agree with the proposed motion but do not want to go against their party's opposition to it.

 

Instead of giving them a pay rise, I would propose that they are paid pro rata on the amount of votes they cast -  Yea or Nay. No abstentions allowed!  If there are 100 votes that year and an MP only votes in 85 of them,  he/ she only gets 85% of their salary.  I would also ban pairing.  No vote - no pay.  Now, that would increase productivity!  No more pictures of the almost empty chamber on a Friday afternoon, when a vote is being cast.  We would have a packed house every day! 

 

I also challenge JonM's assertion that higher pay will attract better MP's.  At the present £6700 it is considerably higher that a lot of professions make.  Only head teachers in education get anywhere near that, certainly not most at the "chalk face".  The same with nurses.  JonM mentions doctors.  How many doctors on £100,000 per annum does he think sat bolt upright in their chairs when the saw that an MP's wage was increasing from the derisory £67,000 to the mouth-watering £74,000?  "Mabel, I'm changing my job.  No more medicine foe me, I'm going to be an MP.  Let the good times roll"

[JohnM]

CKN freely chose to change his job and I'm sure he had his reasons. He's not daft ( politics apart), knew what he was letting himself in for and can look after himself.

 

Some facts: http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/pages/default.aspx

 

- to make a one-off adjustment to MPs' pay from £67,060 to £74,000 a year, to reflect that it had fallen behind;

- thereafter, to link changes in MPs' pay to their constituents' pay across the country;

- to reduce MPs' generous pension benefits;

- to scrap resettlement payments for MPs which had been worth up to a year's salary;

- to tighten MPs' expenses further; and

- to call on MPs to produce an annual account to help constituents to understand their work​

[Bigal02]

CKN freely chose to change his job and I'm sure he had his reasons. He's not daft ( politics apart), knew what he was letting himself in for and can look after himself.

 

Some facts: http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/pages/default.aspx

 

- to make a one-off adjustment to MPs' pay from £67,060 to £74,000 a year, to reflect that it had fallen behind;

- thereafter, to link changes in MPs' pay to their constituents' pay across the country;

- to reduce MPs' generous pension benefits;

- to scrap resettlement payments for MPs which had been worth up to a year's salary;

- to tighten MPs' expenses further; and

- to call on MPs to produce an annual account to help constituents to understand their work​

Yes, ckn freely chose to change his job, hopefully, fully aware of what his remuneration would be.  As did all of the MP's, especially his overall boss, The Right Honourable Jeremy Hunt, (no, that's not cockney rhyming slang). 

[Saintslass]

MPs are indeed public servants but they also have the highest responsibility in the country given that they are responsible for governing the country.  Their pay should reflect that.  I would much prefer MPs to be paid a fixed salary at a higher rate, reflecting the responsibility of their job (not to mention the highly public nature of it and all the attendant pressure that brings), than at a lower rate topped up by multiple benefits that are hard to keep track of and/or easily manipulated by the less scrupulous among them.

[Saintslass]

You do know the IPSA was set-up under Gordon Browns leadership?

Perhaps Gordon Brown's middle name was Dave.

[back to the future]

Leader as in political leader or do you mean chief executive ?

Political leader

[Ramite]

Wow that's sounds incredibly high. I could see that for a CE but leader of the council.

[ckn]

MPs are indeed public servants but they also have the highest responsibility in the country given that they are responsible for governing the country.  Their pay should reflect that.  I would much prefer MPs to be paid a fixed salary at a higher rate, reflecting the responsibility of their job (not to mention the highly public nature of it and all the attendant pressure that brings), than at a lower rate topped up by multiple benefits that are hard to keep track of and/or easily manipulated by the less scrupulous among them.

I don't mean to be patronising but I assume you were taught at school that there are three pillars of the state:  Executive, legislature and judiciary.  Our MPs are the legislature, their entire job is to be responsible for assessing and passing new and revised laws and holding the executive to account.  The executive are the Ministers of State, they're the ones who actually govern the country.  That's why Ministers get such a high extra payment because they have actual governing responsibilities.  MPs govern nothing bar their own constituency offices.

 

To be specific, I'd happily see Ministers get higher pay as they are in charge of the government departments and they really should get paid closer to private sector equivalences.  MPs get very well compensated for their jobs and really don't deserve a 10% pay increase when other public servants are getting 1%.

[Saintslass]

I don't mean to be patronising but I assume you were taught at school that there are three pillars of the state:  Executive, legislature and judiciary.  Our MPs are the legislature, their entire job is to be responsible for assessing and passing new and revised laws and holding the executive to account.  The executive are the Ministers of State, they're the ones who actually govern the country.  That's why Ministers get such a high extra payment because they have actual governing responsibilities.  MPs govern nothing bar their own constituency offices.

 

To be specific, I'd happily see Ministers get higher pay as they are in charge of the government departments and they really should get paid closer to private sector equivalences.  MPs get very well compensated for their jobs and really don't deserve a 10% pay increase when other public servants are getting 1%.

I rather think you do mean to be patronising.  Either way, you were.

 

I am embarrassed for you if you think that governing the country does not involve running constituency offices or voting on legislation. 

[ckn]

I rather think you do mean to be patronising. Either way, you were.

I am embarrassed for you if you think that governing the country does not involve running constituency offices or voting on legislation.

Ok. Let's use an example. Nick Clegg is an MP in a trivial party (by number of MPs) and has so little credibility that no one listens to him any more. He hasn't made a speech or done anything of note in Parliament since the election. What has he done to deserve a 10% pay rise?

He was a Minister of State and was well paid. Now he's a backbench MP and gets a well paid job that reflects his lower responsibilities.

[back to the future]

Ok. Let's use an example. Nick Clegg is an MP in a trivial party (by number of MPs) and has so little credibility that no one listens to him any more. He hasn't made a speech or done anything of note in Parliament since the election. What has he done to deserve a 10% pay rise?

He was a Minister of State and was well paid. Now he's a backbench MP and gets a well paid job that reflects his lower responsibilities.

The same could be said for 100's of MP'S, i mean do nothing of use

Personally i'd cut the number in half we have far too many

Wont happen but i can dream

[JohnM]

They may have a pay rise but the claim is they will still have the same income as now, as various allowances have been reduced.

[neutralfan]

MPS SUCH AS BARRY SHEARMAN ARE ARGUING TODAY THAT IT WAS AN INDEPENDANT REVIEW THAT AWARDED THEM 10 PER CENT SO HE WILL NOT GIVE HIS TO CHARITY!PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS NEED TO DEMAND THAT THEIR NEXT PAY AWARD IS SET BY AN INDEPENDANT TRIBUNAL AND THEN THEY WILL GET A TEN PER CENT PAY RISE?I DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE SO CALLED REPS OF THE PEOPLE(MPS)SLEEP ON A NIGHT!

[back to the future]

MPS SUCH AS BARRY SHEARMAN ARE ARGUING TODAY THAT IT WAS AN INDEPENDANT REVIEW THAT AWARDED THEM 10 PER CENT SO HE WILL NOT GIVE HIS TO CHARITY!PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS NEED TO DEMAND THAT THEIR NEXT PAY AWARD IS SET BY AN INDEPENDANT TRIBUNAL AND THEN THEY WILL GET A TEN PER CENT PAY RISE?I DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE SO CALLED REPS OF THE PEOPLE(MPS)SLEEP ON A NIGHT!

We hear you!!!!!

Obviously Barry is a true socialist,wants everyone else wealth shared but not his

Just like the multi millionaires Bob Geldof and Bono

Hypocrites

[Bedford Roughyed]

To be honest, if I got a 10% payrise (and a reduction in pension), I'd take the money and run.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Cost neutral..

We are going to have fewer MPs soon, in any case

Various "allowances" for MPs have been reduced.

MPs Pay has been in effect frozen for fear of adverse public reaction for many years.

Nevertheless, what a stupid thing to do at this time.

 

It's the timing that's a killer.  I don't really care about them being paid 74K, like I don't rely care if a tube driver gets 50K, If that's what they can earn, good for them.

 

The problem for MP's (and why they are in a mess), is that the timing will very rarely be right.

[CodeAgnostic]

They may have a pay rise but the claim is they will still have the same income as now, as various allowances have been reduced.

If as you say the argument is that the wage increase is necessary to compete for the top talent from Industry. It is interesting that they are not espousing performance related pay, if the comparison is against industry executives and other senior public servants. However the real elephant in the room is Senior executive pay which to me has become more of a problem. The notion or idea espoused by the financial services industry that has become a culture in business that Senior Public Servants have to be paid a comparable rate that to my mind is only sustainable by cuts to other employee working conditions. The problem with the MPs wage increase it is yet more propaganda designed to keep the voting public eye off the ball. The question should really be are these Senior Executives or Public Service comparisons pay really justified, especially when so many of them have talents which appear limited to cuts to employee working conditions or redundancies to make efficiencies in budget or increase share value.