MPs wanting a pay rise to £100K!

[belboid]

the millie mp's used to take the median full time equivalent wage (about 2k today) whereas the SSP took the modal skilled workers wage (about 28k today*) I believe

actually the ssp will do the modal skilled scottish workers wage, but i'm not sure what that is, qwerty is probably right.

 

[junius]

I'm sure Galloway will make a rare visit to the Commons to vote for a pay rise.

 

[Jografer]

Dont MP's use the excuse that this money is used to pay for there own staff. If that is true then why?

No, expenses for staff & offices & travel & accomodation are on top of their salaries....

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The SSP MSPs in the Scottish Parliament still take a workers wage (just over £25K afaik)

Very few workers I know earn £25k!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I haven't used the term "earn" for about twenty years.

"Get paid" is more like it.

 

[gosub]

Dont MP's use the excuse that this money is used to pay for there own staff. If that is true then why?

what good do they realy do, if one MP in one district does something for the good of the area, the other MPs slag them off. Its all very childish.

Personaly i think that each MP has to put in a claim to the governement that is freely available to the public to view. May be on the internet. So that when the local elections comes round we can see how much we are being ripped of by. It may also help with all these bribes they are payed to see how they can afford these massive houses.

in the end all politions are bastards

They get up £136k in expenses which funds staff, offices etc, their salary is separate, but sound bites from anon MP's wants similar treatment as GP's which isn't such a bad move I think :



Giving GP's an extra £136k to pay for receptionists, train them and to pay surgery rent sounds good to me, and you get the added bonus that all MP's will have to do seven year courses paid for by themselves before they can become MP's


Unless I got the wrong end of the stick in which case the greedy self serving twats that have farmed off their responsibilities, lowered their working hours, and gilt edged their pensons can shove their 60% pay rise

 

[Guineveretoo]

SCS pay is extraordinary. When you consider that there are Civil Servants on the minimum wage. When you consider that very many earn below £20k, and in London, where the 'average' income is about £33k most Civil Servants earn below £25k (some less than £20k)...

SCS pay range is between £55k and £205k with most getting more than £100k. That doesn't include bonuses. Most get an annual bonus of around £3000. Many get in year bonuses as well. (This minority of Civil Servants the big bosses are those who the papers base their stats on 'feather bedded pensions etc on). It is also the case that they are never sacked. If they do ever get the push it is with a golden handshake, no matter what the reason.

Permanent Secretaries - the unelected heads of Departments who tell Ministers what they can and can't do, earn between £137,000 and £273,250 excluding bonuses.

MPs are just greedily eyeing the pay and bonuses bonanza that has been underway across the higher strata of our society and they want some of that. It was actually a bunch of Tories who wrote putting in this demand.

The Chartists demanded payment for MPs. The point being to open up the possibility to ordinary folk and not just the idle rich. It was so MPs reflected the society they were elected to represent. It follows therefore that they should get the average London wage of around £33k (that is one of those averages that is bumped up considerably by the salaries of the rich, so most in London in fact get significantly less than the average). In addition they should get money to employ staff, and reasonable travel and accommodation costs (if they are based outside of London and therefore require a London based flat). At present all constituency staff costs come from their salary.

So, on the basis of my extremely generous assessment, they should get a pay cut.

This is inaccurate, on many counts. Do people want me to tell them how? Because I don't honestly think the pay of Senior Civil Servants is that interesting... but I will, if you want me to!

 

[TeeJay]

I would bring in a law stopping MPs from earning more money than mode person in the UK for at least 10 years after they stop being an MP.

Just to stop them doing a deal with the devil and taking advantage of their position.

Yes, I would support this:

Something like £250 pw would be about right:
(see graph here: http://www.geocities.com/tj_7777777/graph.html )

 

[TeeJay]

...Should MPs really earn less a year than a Footballer earns in a week?

Footballers are not paid out of public money and they are not supposedly there simply for the people's benefit or to represent the community.

If someone really gives a shit about this country they would accept a reasonable wage- eg an average or modal wage (plus reasonable expenses for an office, staff and travel related to doing their jobs).

If they wanted this wage to go up they could get on with making sure the UK average wage went up first - and then their interests would be more fully aligned with the people they are supposedly representing, rather than being divergent from it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

So, if you had someone who was earning, say, 59,392 quid a year, and the wages for being an MP were 25k, how many of those people would actually stand for election? Should they sell their house in order to become an MP, since they can no longer afford the mortgage?

Or do you think that only people who are earning around 25k, or less, should be allowed to stand as MPs?

I don't agree with a 66% increase in pay levels for MPs, but I do think they need to be paid a reasonable amount, and I don't think 25k is a reasonable amount for the job they do. I think they should get a 1.9% cost of living increase, which is what that bastard Brown has imposed on most of the public sector, in order to manipulate his inflation figures!

 

[Groucho]

This is inaccurate, on many counts. Do people want me to tell them how? Because I don't honestly think the pay of Senior Civil Servants is that interesting... but I will, if you want me to!

Well, the figures I gave are the official Govt. advice to Govt. Depts for SCS pay bands. Dispute them if you want!

 

[Wilf]

. And who should decide the pay of public servants other than our elected representatives?

I'd give the job to Bernard Cribbins

 

[8ball]

National median wage and no little earners on the side or they're ceremonially drowned as an example to the others.

 

[Wilf]

All of their wages should be attached to washing line hung above the Chamber. They are then given odd sized wooden blocks which they may be able to fit together and climb upon. Rewards the brightest and the tallest - pure Darwinism and a sure fire TV ratings winner.

 

[Das Uberdog]

So, if you had someone who was earning, say, 59,392 quid a year, and the wages for being an MP were 25k, how many of those people would actually stand for election? Should they sell their house in order to become an MP, since they can no longer afford the mortgage?

Or do you think that only people who are earning around 25k, or less, should be allowed to stand as MPs?

I don't agree with a 66% increase in pay levels for MPs, but I do think they need to be paid a reasonable amount, and I don't think 25k is a reasonable amount for the job they do. I think they should get a 1.9% cost of living increase, which is what that bastard Brown has imposed on most of the public sector, in order to manipulate his inflation figures!

You'd like to see lots of MPs in it for the cash?

On no way does that argument work. MPs should be paid national minimum wage with added expenses, their 'staff' should be paid direct through government.

 

[.r.u.i.n.e.d]

Well if we try to see the best in our politicians, I suppose it's always possible that they know they're a bunch of useless failures, and are just doing their level best to piss us all off enough that we vote them out.

It's a shame we don't all have three votes, really, and the choice whether to use them for or against. That might counter voter apathy...

 

[TeeJay]

So, if you had someone who was earning, say, 59,392 quid a year, and the wages for being an MP were 25k, how many of those people would actually stand for election? Should they sell their house in order to become an MP, since they can no longer afford the mortgage?

Why not?

It is very easy to rent these days, what with half the country doing "buy to let".

Or do you think that only people who are earning around 25k, or less, should be allowed to stand as MPs?

Not being able to servie your debts bcause you have bought a massive house isn't "not being allowed".

You will be able to afford reasonable accomodatioon on an MPs wage, along with the average family in the UK, who also have to service mortgages, or pay rent.

I don't agree with a 66% increase in pay levels for MPs, but I do think they need to be paid a reasonable amount, and I don't think 25k is a reasonable amount for the job they do. I think they should get a 1.9% cost of living increase, which is what that bastard Brown has imposed on most of the public sector, in order to manipulate his inflation figures!

How come up with what is a "reasonable amount"? What is a reasobale amou t for sweeping the street, being a nurse, teaching kids, being a policeman or cleaning toliets?

How exactly is being an MP - something that after all is all about political belief and conviction and making the world a better place for everyone any worse than these jobs?

If you don't really believe in it with a passion then you should go and work in the City - if you aren't willing to live like the average family then why should you claim to speak for them or dictate their lives?

 

[Azrael]

Having unpaid MPs wasn't just a way of screwing over the poor: independent means were seen to guarantee an independent conscience. There was a certain truth in it. Many great 19th century MPs would take a break from the commons for a few years, and were even willing to loose their (paid) ministerial posts. Gladstone's resignations on obscure points of principle provided regular Commons entertainment.

Now MPs are professionalised they'll do anything to keep their jobs.

I'm not sure what the answer would be. Returning to the old system is probably untennable (and good luck getting a parliament to vote for it!) but a solution they would vote for is going to be much worse than a £100k wage. Namely, a guaranteed annual income until retirement age regardless of re-election.

Even I couldn't bring myself to support that. If anyone has a solution that would allow professional MPs to acquire (and perhaps even follow) a conscience, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Well, the figures I gave are the official Govt. advice to Govt. Depts for SCS pay bands. Dispute them if you want!

Those were not the bits which were inaccurate, although several Government Departments pay different amounts to their SCS. It was the bonus figures, the number who get bonuses, the annual increases, and the numbers who get annual increases.

 

[Guineveretoo]

You'd like to see lots of MPs in it for the cash?

On no way does that argument work. MPs should be paid national minimum wage with added expenses, their 'staff' should be paid direct through government.

No, but I would like to see people who can earn a decent wage being encouraged to become MPs, and that means paying at least enough to attract, for example, someone who is currently on a lawyer's salary or a GP's salary, or an accountant's salary etc. etc.

Can no-one see how paying the minimum wage would dramatically reduce the number of people prepared to stand for election? It's a full time job (although, admittedly, several of them do maintain company directorships to supplement their incomes, and I think restrictions should be put on that).

 

[Guineveretoo]

You'd like to see lots of MPs in it for the cash?

On no way does that argument work. MPs should be paid national minimum wage with added expenses, their 'staff' should be paid direct through government.

No, but I would like to see people who can earn a decent wage being encouraged to become MPs, and that means paying at least enough to attract, for example, someone who is currently on a lawyer's salary or a GP's salary, or an accountant's salary etc. etc.

Can no-one see how paying the minimum wage would dramatically reduce the number of people prepared to stand for election? It's a full time job (although, admittedly, several of them do maintain company directorships to supplement their incomes, and I think restrictions should be put on that).

MPs staff are paid out of taxpayers' money, but they are not civil servants, but political employees.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Having unpaid MPs wasn't just a way of screwing over the poor: independent means were seen to guarantee an independent conscience. There was a certain truth in it. Many great 19th century MPs would take a break from the commons for a few years, and were even willing to loose their (paid) ministerial posts. Gladstone's resignations on obscure points of principle provided regular Commons entertainment.

Now MPs are professionalised they'll do anything to keep their jobs.

I'm not sure what the answer would be. Returning to the old system is probably untennable (and good luck getting a parliament to vote for it!) but a solution they would vote for is going to be much worse than a £100k wage. Namely, a guaranteed annual income until retirement age regardless of re-election.

Even I couldn't bring myself to support that. If anyone has a solution that would allow professional MPs to acquire (and perhaps even follow) a conscience, I'd love to hear it.

There were no Labour MPs in the 19th Century. They all had a private income of one kind or another.

 

[poster342002]

No, but I would like to see people who can earn a decent wage being encouraged to become MPs, and that means paying at least enough to attract, for example, someone who is currently on a lawyer's salary or a GP's salary, or an accountant's salary etc. etc.

Yeah - becuase we don't have quite enough MPs who are lawyers, accountants etc do we?

 

[poster342002]

So, if you had someone who was earning, say, 59,392 quid a year, and the wages for being an MP were 25k, how many of those people would actually stand for election?

Frankly, I don't want them to stand for election. Instead, how about a few people being elected who are actually already on the average wage (which £59,392 most certainly is not) and therefore grounded a bit more in the reality of ordinary people?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Would be a good thing. It would also (as I'm sure you'll agree) be good if people who hold power other than parliamentary also had a bit more idea what life is like when you're on stuff all money.

 

[poster342002]

Would be a good thing. It would also (as I'm sure you'll agree) be good if people who hold power other than parliamentary also hd a bit more idea what life is like when you're on stuff all money.

Err - I think I agree with you, but could you re-draft that post?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I could if I wasn't off to lunch!

 

[Combustible]

An obvious start would be to stop MPs having any other income. No paid directorships/working for a bank on the side.

 

[8ball]

Agreed.

A problem with the 'national minimum wage' idea is that you'd soon have a chamber full of hobbyists and rich kids on private incomes.

Could end up worse than having a load of careerists.

 

[Das Uberdog]

No, but I would like to see people who can earn a decent wage being encouraged to become MPs, and that means paying at least enough to attract, for example, someone who is currently on a lawyer's salary or a GP's salary, or an accountant's salary etc. etc.

Can no-one see how paying the minimum wage would dramatically reduce the number of people prepared to stand for election? It's a full time job (although, admittedly, several of them do maintain company directorships to supplement their incomes, and I think restrictions should be put on that).

MPs staff are paid out of taxpayers' money, but they are not civil servants, but political employees.

Reduce the amount of people standing for election? Well, if they were only standing for election to get their hands on a fat juicy income, and if the loss of that income is enough to discourage them from standing, then I seriously doubt whether or not I'd want those people to stand at all anyway.

If you stand for parliament it should be because you are politically and socially convicted, not because you're viewing it as a viable career move. I highly doubt that reducing MPs wages to National Minimum Wage would create a huge drought of MPs in the commons anyway.