Furious that MP's are to get an 11% pay rise!

(270 Posts)
Millenniumbug1 Sun 08-Dec-13 08:42:24

Why? When the rest of the country is wondering how we're going to pay our heating bills, we had 30,000 deaths due to the cold last year, (many more than Switzerland), but the MPs award themselves this pay rise.
I always feel indebted to vote, but I wish we could have a box on the ballot paper which says that we don't like any of them! I just don't think they've earned an 11% pay rise.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:28:09

65k isn't a low salary. It's in the top ten percent.

KidLorneRoll Tue 10-Dec-13 11:28:54

It's all very well saying that many MP's are independently wealthy, but many are not and we don't want a system where only people who can afford to be MP's are able to be so. It should be open to all. Offering 20k a year is not going encourage good people to seek election.

My local MP works damn hard and is by no means well off, and every 4-5 years she stands to lose it regardless of how well she does it. 65k is not a massive amount of money based on the amount of work she does and the relative insecurity of the position.

Perhaps the increase is excessive, but the salary itself is - for most of them - deserved. If you don't think it is, use your vote or run for election yourself.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:39:01

I also think we need a reminder as to what an MP does.

They are servants of the people, serving in Parliament to represent their constituents. As individuals they have little power, only influence.

Comparing them to GPs, head teachers and other professionals is demeaning to those professionals who actually have to have qualifications behind them to do those jobs. They also have considerable power eg over an individual's health, education etc etc. the most an MP can do is lobby and write a few letters, head up campaigns.
This is why MPs get more if they take on responsibility eg committee work, cabinet jobs etc.

Fundamentally we live in a democracy and it's for the voter to decide who they want as MP. This means that trying to tweak salaries to "get the best" is wrong - if voters want noddy, then so be it.

The salary is to ensure that they can afford to do the job not live the life of Riley.

And finally the actual increase is disgraceful given our current climate, or so where told.

How much is IPSA planning to reduce the allowances system by?

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:41:17

I will add I think the current salary is fine!

mercibucket Tue 10-Dec-13 12:41:17

agree 00 percent steamwisher

mercibucket Tue 10-Dec-13 12:41:37

oops
100 percent!

Darkesteyes Tue 10-Dec-13 14:35:35

life and work, give everything they can, work for constituents and charities and have no extra income who have reviewed letters saying they are greedy bitches who deserve sexual attacks.

Netguru thats vitriolic mysogyny coming into play there. Rather than anything to do with money

Darkesteyes Tue 10-Dec-13 14:39:23

KidLorneRollTue 10-Dec-13 11:28:54

It's all very well saying that many MP's are independently wealthy, but many are not and we don't want a system where only people who can afford to be MP's are able to be so.


RUBBISH If someone on Jobseekers or minimum wage wants to run for MP or council they wouldnt be able to afford the upfront fees.
So we ALREADY have a system where not everyone can afford to enter politics.

Binkybix Tue 10-Dec-13 15:25:00

To be honest I think an important barrier is the fact that an independent stands nearly 0% chance of winning, so you have to get really involved with one party, aligning yourself to the majority of its policies and working up through the ranks. People who want to just get on with supporting the local community without getting caught up in party politics are put off by that I think. They're probably exactly the sort of people you'd actually want representing you.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 19:47:50

Exactly Binky

So let's not pretend that there's a queue of highly qualified people who couldn't possibly demean themselves by only earning 65k a year and are therefore put off.

Thank you merci! (odd saying thank you twice!)

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 19:49:07

And KidLorne MPs get another years salary if they're not re-elected. Hardly "insecure".

diddlediddledumpling Tue 10-Dec-13 20:59:27

Steamwisher I think IPSA has said that resettlement payment is too high and it will be reduced in 2015, same time as the pay rise. Can't remember to what level, will loom it up.
I hadn't been aware of it before, it's preposterous.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 21:05:59

It is preposterous!

If it were easier, I'd stand for mp just for the perks wink

diddlediddledumpling Tue 10-Dec-13 21:07:13

After 2015, it goes down to 17% of salary, so more like a redundancy payment.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 21:08:32

Ok, that's not so bad.

It's not the level of pay that I have a problem with, or even the fact that maybe they "deserve" an increase. It is that others of us working in the public sector have seen cuts and not rises in our income.

prh47bridge Thu 12-Dec-13 13:43:58

So we ALREADY have a system where not everyone can afford to enter politics

True (although your deposit will be paid by your party if you stand for one of the major parties) but I don't see that as an argument for restricting even further the pool of people who can afford to enter politics.

It is that others of us working in the public sector have seen cuts and not rises in our income

A significant part of this seems to be rolling into salary things that were previously claimed as expenses. Another element is increasing salary to compensate for reduced benefits. IPSA say that overall this will not cost the taxpayer a penny more. If true that suggests the average MP won't see much of an increase when everything is taken into account.

PigletJohn Thu 12-Dec-13 15:15:59

"IPSA say that overall this will not cost the taxpayer a penny more"

If that is true, how much have they been pocketing in expenses and allowances that no ordinary working person would expect to receive, and would pay tax on if they did?

SteamWisher Thu 12-Dec-13 20:25:36

Sorry but you have to be pretty dense to think that it's a good idea to think about doing this now. And if it wont cost the taxpayer a penny, that implies that overall MPs can get the same? Otherwise we'd hear about the savings.

Yes MPs pay needs sorting but not right now. It's a PR disaster and the timing - 2015?! Are IPSA stupid? People have little faith in politicians as it is. Do they want people to vote at the next election or not?

PigletJohn Thu 12-Dec-13 20:57:23

I'm getting into the Tumbril business.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now