Furious that MP's are to get an 11% pay rise!(270 Posts)
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.
We'll they deserve it of course. It's hard time consuming work fucking everyone over . Didn't you know??
Really? That's shocking. I wonder why they think it's ok?
My workplace certainly doesn't award pay rises
at all based on inflation or what we feel our jobs are worth.
Are they? Really??
My net income as been going down for years.
But that's ok as according to the DailyFail I make a cool quarter of a million anyway
Agree completely. DH has been fighting to get 1% for two years now - there have been no pay increases for ages. In 5 years his pay has barely increased at all. And this while everything gets more and more expensive.We can barely afford DH's travel to work, let alone Christmas. Even my 17yo is working every spare hour from college so she can pay for some of her stuff. 3 working adults in the house and we cant make ends meet because wages are so low (DD is on £4 an hour and DH not much over NMW) Then they try and tell us we're all in it together. Yeah, right.
I've moved from private sector to a statutory body (ngo)and their pay has been frozen for 3 years. Shouldn't that apply across the board?!
Well, I think they should get a pay rise.
Pay rises are A Good Thing, on the whole. As is attracting professionals to stand as MPs.
I just think the rest of the country should get one too.
They absolutely should get a pay raise.
The same rate as all other public sector workers.
My public sector husband just got 1.5%. Over something like 6 months.
So out of touch.
Apparently we are all in it together.
It's on the BBC news website.
This has actually just made me so, so angry .
I think 11% is about right to keep up with the rising cost of living. The trouble is, the rest of us won't be keeping up.
I'm so glad we're in this together Dave.... Dave? Where are you?
I don't think they are paid enough. It's bloody hard work and lots of them could make substantially higher salaries doing other jobs. You need to attract the best. And don't want to return to the days of needing to have a private income to be an mp.
Agree they should get the same payrise they have forced on the rest of the public sector, which I believe to be 1% ish?
How on earth can they think they deserve 11% when nurses are so stretched and are only getting a tenth of that?!
Well, they need a payrise now that they can't fiddle their expenses any more.
Kerala but the point is that far too many of them are of no use whatsoever (Caroline Flint, Ed Balls, Michael Gove) and actually wouldn't make more money elsewhere because some of them have no experience whatsoever.
Yes we need more people with real life experience to be MPs, but rewarding the useless incumbents with an 11% payrise is not the way to do it.
I disagree it is simplistic at best to assume more money=better candidates. You could equally equate more money to greedier candidates.
Also parliament should be a cross section of society, not solely professionals.
My initial reaction is wtaf.
But the pay was set ipso, an independent body set up to sort out the expenses/ perks/ general thieving that was going on. Any MP with any sensitivity should donate it to Charity.
"And don't want to return to the days of needing to have a private income to be an mp."
Yes, because a room full of mostly millionaires have no private income.
You should like you're about as in touch with reality as they are.
Don't you know they need to be paid more so they're not corruptible? Nobody wants to be corruptible.
They do not reward themselves a pay rise. It's been decided by an independent body. They can't even vote on it.
They have lost some allowances.
What salary do you think someone with the repsonsibility of an MP should get? What comparable public sector job would you compare it to?
Well, then the independent body should be sacked and the taxpayer should be asked how much of a raise the MPs deserve.
Because I doubt any of us would give them 11% or are getting 11% any time soon.
I'd compare it to a fluffy PR job, with zero substance. Don't know what that twic of job would pay though.
Isn't it convenient that they get to absolve themselves of all responsibility for this payrise now they've handed it over to an independent body...
I can safely assume that if said body suggested an 11% pay cut, they'd get a vote or a say in it, or the decision wouldn't have been given to them in the first place.
Independent body my arse.
The 'Independent' body have clearly been working closely with the mps...
They have list some allowances
Yes, such as a £15 dinner allowance and claims for tea and biscuits. They can't have their taxis paid for either, unless its after 11pm. (These are just some of the ones mentioned in NBC article, there are probably others.)
I don't know about you, but I've to pay for my own dinner, tea and biscuits.
sorry, NBC= BBC
Also, it's claimed the three main party leaders disagree with it.
Who is actually on IPSA?
I reckon nurses, teachers etc could do with a nice independent body to recommend how much they get then and for the government to have to say yes.
Of course ipso have recommended that, because as others have said its what is needed to keep up with the rise in cost of living. They aren't politically motivated. However if the Tories truly believe austerity is needed then they would say no thank you that's against our policy.
Well, there are other jobs with lots of responsibility, aren't there? I am not seeing 11% payrises in other sectors
Yes, what Kitten and PD said.
High level Bankers and MPs are the only ones getting raises this high lately. The rest of us muddle along with 1 - 2%.
It's fucking ridiculous.
Noble giraffe is actually correct! One of the main drivers of the MPs' request for a pay rise was the tightening of the expenses policies.
In 'The Thick of It', Malcolm Tucker (best character on telly in my view) tells the new minister for DOSaC that the public would like to see her working for free and sitting on a spike whilst she does it. I think there's some truth in that. If you want good people to become MPs, you have to pay them a decent salary. As others have noted, we don't want to return to a time when only rich people could afford to be MPs.
I suspect they are going for a big increase now so that they don't have to do another for a few years...get the bad PR out of the way all at once.
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband were actually against the increase, although the first two at least are independently wealthy so the salary is meaningless to them.
I just think that they should lead from the front and have 1 or 2%, "We're all in it together," now sounds so incredibly hollow.
Well the three leaders of the parties disagree with it so I'll be waiting to see if they donate the extra to charity each year.
I'm a sw and dh is PC we've bad our pay frozen for ages now and I've had my bad allowance taken away even though if be sacked if I didn't have a car to get to visits all over the country.
We will also be retiring shortly before we die!
Democracy my fat arse.
Car allowance not bad allowance whicb we don't get either
Pay them the national average wage. As a PP has said, the point of the salary was to remove the need to have an independent income and allow working class people to become MPs. It was not "to attract the best people" or to allow MPs to become rich while in the job. Being an MP isn't massively trying unless you're a Minister. And guess what - you get paid more for that.
When the rest of public sector hasn't had a payrise for years or has had 1%? And thousands of public sector employees will be losing they're jobs next year? No they shouldn't get 11% payrise.
Oh well - I'm sure that they will all do the decent thing and not take it.
If you want good people to become MPs you have to pay them a decent salary
I don't think that is a valid justification for an 11% pay rise in the current climate. We are in need of "decent people" to become doctors, teachers, nurses, social workers. But there's no such renumeration for them.
Also, is it only "decent" people who are attracted to a high salary? Indecent people are happy with minimum wage then?
What does a cabinet minister get Giveityourbest?
I didn't realise it was more, but that's understandable, I suppose.
Local government are also awarding themselves pay rises well above the national average.
All a bunch of crooks IMO.
Look at what a hospital consultant, GP, headteacher of a large secondary, Brigadier earns.
Should an MP be paid what they earn?
If good people want to be MPs they should be:
Listen to their constituents and
Accept that public service is not something that makes you rich.
It is disgusting and immoral. MPs cannot be unaware of many people struggling and they accept 11%. I just couldn't do it
Ah yes - high salaries attract the best don't they?
It certainly seems to put a stop to the networking and cliques that seemed to dominate the higher posts - public and private - in our country.
It's not as if massive institutions - again public and private - are being run into the ground purely by ineptness. Bollocks is there an evil masterplan, it's plain fucking stupidity.
<nudges Jeremy Hunt and Michael Gove forward> look at these fantastic examples of the 'best' people to oversee the basic needs of a civilized society. Their sparkling CV's clearly show they're capable of what their remit requires.
Such a shame that Paul Flowers was given to such sordid hobbies considering his solid experience in the banking industry.
I've read some of IPSA's report on remuneration packages.
The crux of it seems to be that since 2007, the salary if an MP has dropped below that of some other professions which are considered comparable in terms if responsibility. The report says there is a pay gap which needs to be fixed.
The other professions include a head teacher (I think of a large school, in London, salary grade L31), a Police Chief Superintendent,
A colonel in the armed forces and an HR director in a health trust. Plus a couple of others.
Do you think these are comparable roles, in terms of responsibility? Genuine question
I suppose its a good day to release this news, seeing as all the news stations will be preoccupied with the Mandela day of mourning...
Jeremy Hunt is determined to prevent a 1% "unaffordable" pay rise for NHS staff. I bet he doesn't consider a pay rise for himself to be unaffordable.
Diddle for your average bog-standard MP? No.
Head teacher, police chief etc all all likely to be experts in their field. MPs are certainly not.
I'd agree, baker.
I think they've looked at the top salaries in those professions, which isn't appropriate, in my opinion.
I don't think they are comparable, no. But the only mitigation for me is that being an mp isn't exactly a secure job, therefore I suppose there is some argument for them to be paid a little more than their level.
It would be a more secure job if they were better at it
Maybe that should be the incentive.
There are independent bodies that recommend salaries for quite a lot of public sector people - the Senior Salaries Review Board for one.
They make recommendations that salaries should be increased, with reasons as to how much and why.
In recent years the Government has overridden their recommendations and imposed zero/1% at best (and no increments in most of the civil service, so this is a real-terms cut each year).
If the Government can override the recommendations of every other public sector review body to hold down salaries for political reasons, it seems a little odd that it is "unable" to override the IPSA recommendation and hold down MP salaries for political reasons.
A colonel in the armed forces and an HR director in a health trust. How many of these get expenses to buy second homes and can do other jobs at the same time?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Andy Burnham has said on Twitter that this will remove any Trust the public still has in MPs. Since the new lot of cuts announced in the Autumn Statement I'm gearing up for the third year of redundancies in a row. This was coupled with a pay cut last year and removal of the out of hours service the Year before. No pay rise for five years. We got a £50 Christmas bonus last year (non managers only) but nothing this year. We're not even taking on any more volunteers as we can't pay their travel expenses. This news makes me sick.
MPs' income should be linkedto the national average wage. Give the buggers some incentive to improve conditions for the great unwashed.
I can't think of words to describe people who tell that if you can't afford heating you should wrap up in blankets and then give themselves a huge pay rise.
I hear there will be free 'cake' at the foodbank though.
Personally Imp, I'd like to see them on the dole without removing any of the restrictions imposed on everyone else - THEN see what they say.
Along with 5 months holiday a year, disgusting. There's something wrong with this country. We are all in it together my arse!
I haven't had a pay rise in 6 years. I work hard. I can't afford any treats. Why are the affluent afforded more monies when those who are struggling (and I mean those worse off that I am) can't afford their hearing bills. What a crock of shit
It's quite nauseating.
They've just found another way to keep their snouts in the trough.
It is sickening.
Everybody has to economize. "We are all in this together" My arse!
Why dont they force an 11% increase on all?
It should pay to work for everybody.
A back bench MP does not have a responsible job comparable to a Brigadier or a hospital consultant. He is paid to sit quietly and go through the lobbies to vote in obedience to his party's instructions.
Meanwhile his assistants, working for nothing or funded by the taxpayer, write sympathetic letters full of flannel to his constituents. He may sign these letters, and possibly read some of them.
As being an MP is a part-time job, he can occupy himself as a company director or spouting nonsense on TV and radio.
If we the taxpayers are forced to pay them a full-time salary we should require them to do a full-time job.
The common people are required to compete for jobs at a market price. If 60 youngsters apply for every minimum wage job in a burger bar, the wage offered doesn't go up "to attract the best"
High pay goes to those who can wangle it for themselves if their employers either agree or have no control over it.
What also annoys me is what a half-arsed job some of them do when it comes to voting. When you look at the voting records, some of them are hardly ever there! What about value for money?
And some of them even have time for Jungle adventures for TV.....
Excellent post PigletJohn, we need to remember these are public servants not masters.
If you want to think about half arsed jobs what about the numerous reports about IDS's incompitence that get ignored time after time after time.
I'm sure I read somewhere he's about to write off a fair few million due to that crappy IT system he's tried to put in place. It's ok though, it's not as though the UK needs that money or could have been spent better somewhere else.
Can't we start one of those online petition things? If you get over 100,000 signatures they have to discuss it in parliament - is that right? What do think?
In all honesty, you couldn't pay me enough to be an MP.
You go for the job initially because you really want to help and make a difference. Then when you get in, your party won't listen to you, you are forced into the party line, your constituents decide they don't like you (having just voted for you), your private life becomes public property, anything you say will be picked apart and twisted out of all proportion, it does not matter how reasonable or genuinely good your intentions are, someone, somewhere, will hate you for them and decide you are the scum of the earth. You will work 12+ hour days regularly. If you're out in the sticks you have to somehow balance working in London AND your consituency without alienating your public, and on top of all this, you are responsible for making decisions that will impact the lives of millions of people and ensuring the security and future of this country.
And you get bugger all thanks for it.
To me, £65k for that is peanuts. Which is why I stick to the day job
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that there are not corrupt MPs, but I am one of those people who believes that at heart, most people are just normal, decent individals trying to do their job. We see a handful of cases of expense fiddling out of a total of 650 MPs from all parties. I don't believe that makes all MPs horrible people, although I do believe that a rise of this magnitude at this period is unwise and out of touch.
And the thing is, the top nachos are millionaires anyway, and they have the audacity to call their public scroungers. Parliament needs an overhaul. IDS should be taxed on the air he breathes, he's useless. They are paid out of the country's purse! have they forgotten this fact?!
This offers an excellent perspective:
24, I've lost count of the number of petition that have reached that number if not smashed it, I have yet to see ONE that has been discussed in Parliament.
Out of interest, how much would you need to be paid to make it fees able to stand / get in as an MP?
For me, I would need that kind of amount to be able to realistically think about it. I only earn a fraction of that, but to take on that role, I would need a lot of money to cover child care and related costs to keep home life straight for my kids.
MP's are not self appointed, they are the people we as communities choose to represent us. If your MP is crap, stand against them, don't make the role unaffordable for you, me or anyone else who might be better.
I think that an 11% pay rise in the current climate is, at best, unwise. It flies in the face of what other, very hardworking people, are being awarded in their salaries. This is either quite a serious misjudgement, or just a defiant 2 fingers to the rest of us.
It interesting to see which MPs have come out in opposition to the rise.
I wonder if I should try be an MP.
What qualifications do I need? Or is conviction enough?
Must I be a British Citizen?
Communities don't choose MPs. They are selected by the local political parties, subject to their choice meeting the approval of the central office.
The party loyalists then vote for whichever person or horse is wearing a hat with their favourite party's ribbon on it.
>>Communities don't choose MPs. They are selected by the local political parties, subject to their choice meeting the approval of the central office.
>>The party loyalists then vote for whichever person or horse is wearing a hat with their favourite party's ribbon on it.
Yes, because they are stupid, and all this is enabled by the majority who don't even vote, but if that is who they want to represent them then they have the mandate to represent their community. It still needs to be fees able for any ordinary person to stand and get it without a financial barrier .
It's fucking appalling I haven't had a payrise in 5 years.
I agree with Kerala. They are woefully underpaid and have been for years. Now they are unable to make this up with expenses. They should be on at least £120k.
I agree with FyreFly actually that it's not an attractive job. There may well be a case, objectively, that MPs are underpaid.
But that isn't really the point. There is indisputably a case that many senior public sector staff are underpaid when compared with their equivalents in the private sector. MPs have decided that - for political reasons - no attempt shall be made to close that gap and pay in the public sector must be frozen. It is not right that there should be one rule for them and another rule for us.
And there are actually many people, some posting on Mumsnet, who by their own admission have the TV on a lot of the time, are well up with sleb gossip but seem to think it quite reasonable to claim to take no interest in politics. The apathy of people like this make it so much easier for the MPs andthose in power to dstick up two metaphorical fingers to those who care about social injustice. The sadness is that we're becoming increasingly immune to being shocked and I don't know how we can change things.
Agree it's absolutely appalling and not the first time either, but it's not the MPs themselves that set it, so no point blaming them.
For what it's worth though, they don't get paid half what someone doing a responsible job in business would
But they aren't doing a responsible job. Those who are get paid extra. So do some who have kept their noses clean, or not got caught, and have done as they were told for a few years.
It doesn't matter who set it - the point is they shouldn't be accepting it. They could give it to charity but they wont, they'll keep it and claim to the rest of us that they tried their hardest to refuse - which we all know is bollocks.
Perhaps they could donate it to offset the loss IDS has created with the Work Programme.
How many people actually know what MPs do?
It's not running the country.
That's the job of the PM and his cabinet. They're MPs and they get extra salaries on top of being an MP.
MPs should represent their constituencies ie us by turning up and voting at parliament, lobbying etc.
Instead they're whipped to follow party lines, they don't turn up to parliament and they write a few letters every now and then. You do not need to be a genius.
I will also add that their current basic salary put them in the top 10% of earners. That's before their allowances.
I'd also love to be an MP but without joining a party and sucking arse, there's no way it would happen.
It's not the salary that puts people off.
For the responsibility mps have they are paid buttons, i wouldn't let my life be consumed by a job for that salary.
They are not responsible for anything though are they? They are NEVER, NEVER pulled up for breaking the rules, doing crap jobs, taking advantage of everything in fact, they are REWARDED for it.
What is the responsibility that you think a backbencherbackbencher, on basic pay plus expenses plus allowances, plus generous pension, carries?
I've heard the argument before that other people with very consuming jobs, nurses, teachers, social workers don't deserve pay rises despite the responsibilities of the job because if they don't like their pay, they can always leave.
Who would be devastated to see them all replaced?
and that's without the law breaking they get away with - has anyone else read about yet another MP being dragged in by police for Child sex offences? No? All this is always kept quiet and they get away with murder while screwing the rest of us over and yet people still wonder why the general public don't vote in the numbers they used to.
I have had to reduce my annual overseas holidays from four to three thanks to no rises these last few years.
It isn't an attractive job. There are some good constituency mps, people who feel they can make a difference, who hold regular surgeries and consultations in their areas, who write letter for constituents etc.
However, combined with the fact that our emergency services, our teachers, doctors et al are getting bugger all, and the fact that they are able to take on extra paid jobs elsewhere, afford good holidays etc. it does rather look as though they are shafting each and every one of us.
I have a friend who used to work in Downing Street. I wonder if the usual lavish (and free) Christmas party has gone due to austerity?
They don't have a huge amount of responsibility Nigella.
You're confusing people like Ian Duncan smith with an MP. IDS is a cabinet minister and MP. He gets even more money - about £135k in total.
There are some great hardworking constituency MPs. However if you're idle, do the bare minimum, rarely vote and sit comfortably on a large majority who is ever going to hold you accountable or pay you by performance or results which is how most people earn their money these days.
make being an mp a job with responsibilities approaching those of a hospital consultant and I would see the comparison
as it is your average male backbencher appears to spend their day sexually harrassing female opposition mps. and shouting. and hurling abuse. and not turning up to vote much
link their pay rise to public sector in general
For those saying we need to pay that much to get the best people running the country - remember that George Osborne only went into politics because he failed at becoming a journalist.
Have you seen them in the House of Commons? It's embarrassing. Tit for tat comments, little digs over nothing important, arguing over utter crap, insults, I would say it's like watching kids in a playground but even 4-5 year olds are better behaved and more mature. Watching them just points out to me that they are the worst of society. I know drug addicts adn spoken to the homeless who have more sense about them than most of those in Parliament.
Isn't Osbourne the one with the Family wallpaper business?
Party politics is failing the country too. No well thought out policies for the long term, just slapdash populist tinkering because in 4 years it will be the other lot who suffer the fallout.
I really want to add some considered, thoughtful response to the debate, but all I can think of is what to knit while I'm sitting by the guillotine.
My pay's been cut every year for the last five in real terms, and these bastards think they deserve 11%?
I'm really very cross indeed.
" just slapdash populist tinkering because in 4 years it will be the other lot who suffer the fallout."
More proof, not that we need it, that they are only thinking of themselves.
Opener - it's not really a debate, we've all pretty much said the same thing. Now budge over, I want to get my knitting done too.
For me it's the fact that at a time when every public sector worker is having a 1% rise across the board, when some private sector workers are actually taking pay cuts to keep their jobs and certain banks stand accused of deliberately bankrupting & closing small businesses, to accept an 11% pay rise just shows the contempt that MPs hold the rest of us in!
In 2010 a Cabinet Minister recieved £145,000, BakerStreet
MPs are public servants. Any pay rises should be linked throughout the public service. Most workers in the public services have had pay freezes for the last few years, with a1% increase this year. The review bodies for public service pay have been over-ruled because it's not affordable, yet suddenly the ruling on MP pay can't be over rules.
And they're losing the allowance for dinner and tea / biscuits (£15 a day!!!!)- my heart bleeds for them. How many nurses / doctors get a special allowance for dinner if they stay late, or get put up in a hotel because they end up staying later at the end of a shift because of staff shortages. How many community health and social care staff end up paying for business miles because the mileage rate didn't increase with the cost of fuel? How many vulnerable adults are not getting decent care because the social care budget has been slashed and they don't meet the criteria to get social service funded care this year?
But please MPs, enjoy your pay rise - Bunch of greedy bastards..
if ive got this right, then, IPSA has already determined that this pay rise will come into effect in 2015, is that the case? No matter what the leaders say? (Really? The prime minister can't overrule this, like government has done with the recommendations regarding my salary?)
I'm going to write to my MP and ask her what she intends to about it. I suggest you do the same.
Not all of public sector are getting 1% - some aren't getting a payrise at all...
we are all in this together you know.....
In the last 4 year I haven't had a pay increase and have had a pay cut to boot due to cuts and more cuts
They have no fucking idea....
the reason the PM (not that he needs the money, being a multimillionaire) can do no more than pitifully wring his hands, is that only Parliament can change the rules on MPs pay.
So MPs vote for the rules on their own pay, like they voted for the rules on their own expenses and their own pensions. And they are unlikely to vote for a pay-setting committee that has the same sense of penny-pinching meanness as those who decide on pay for other public servants.
The PM doesn't believe that MPs as a hole have sufficient sense of shame to pull their snouts of the our trough.
The best we can hope for is that a few will publicly declare that they won't accept, or will donate, the pay rise this year meaning that after they've had their grinning faces in the paper for Christmas, they can quietly pocket it next year when we've all forgotten.
So the recommendations that IPSA make will be put to a vote in parliament?
By the way, it doesn't apply until after the general election in 2015, so they can't pocket it this year or next.
Which also means that current MPs can say they won't accept it, but they might not still be in their seats in 2015.
this says that IPSA has responsibility fir determining MPs pay, not advising or recommending.
The rise is repulsive. When's the election due?
I think there are some MPs who probably do deserve a rise. There are many who do not - it should be a highly responsible job, but when you see the perks - and let's not forget the truly diamond plated pension they get - and when you see how many of them bother to turn up then the picture looks quite different.
And as many above have said, when everyone else in both private and public sector except the bankers are getting virtually nothing, accepting an 11% rise is political suicide. They are going to have to take on IPSA about this now.
There are thousands of workers who deserve a pay rise - sadly they aren't getting one, or if they are, it's nothing like 11%.
Surely to God they won't take this pay rise - surely?
They work only 145 days next year.
I have just signed a petition:-
Even if it has been proposed by an independent body, surely if it had been proposed for any other industry the government would argue that such findings can't be supported during a time of economic regrouping?
If all other industries (except executive bankers, obviously) are being pinned back to desultory pay rises, why should politicians be any different?
If some MPs are hard working types who deserve a swingeing huge massive pay rise, why, then let's bring in performance related pay for the old dears and see how they get on, eh?
Meanwhile, I shall go back to googling how to build a tumbril and looking for my knitting needles. What's a suitable knitting pattern for this sort of occasion?
PMSL on performance related pay - that would be brillliant.
if they were on PRP, how much would some of them have to give back?
badasahatter - epetition signed.
Hang on, I've got a figure for that right here...
...all of it.
Don't get the vitriol. I know some and most decent and work really hard. It's bloody difficult maintaining family life when you work away and they do really long hours. And as this thread demonstrates whatever you do everyone hates you. One of the people I know is super bright could be on twice her salary in the city but feels passionately about improving things so is in politics. It's tough on her and her little daughter. So no wont be joining the baying mob
Will your friend be handing back the payrise then?
Ahhh, bless your friend and her really long hours...and her long holidays, and second home, and her allowances...
If you really don't get the vitriol then you really don't have a clue, do you?
It's the "we're all in together" from Dave that's wound a lot of people up. We're clearly not in it together. And what about the austerity, they're certainly not practicing what they're preaching. I can't see how it's justified.
It's a baying mob because the majority of politicians are not worth the money they are paid. Most of them earn ludicrously more than the average wage and won't see a payrise for a number of years because of the economic climate.
I know a woman who is incredibly bright, has a degree in English and a masters in Speech and Language and works incredibly hard for less than £20k a year. She could earn much more money doing something else, but she wants to help children with special needs and works with a small boy who has hearing difficulties and major speech development. She won't be getting an 11% payrise this year. Nor will nurses or teachers or policemen, many of whom are bright and hard working. Many of them face dangers and difficulties in their jobs and their children have a terrible time of things as a result of this. They won't get this level of payrise because the PM has said that public servants shouldn't be given payrises when the rest of the country tightens their belts. We are all in this together.
But apparently, this doesn't apply when it comes to MPs' salaries. That's why there is so much vitriol against politicians. That and the fact that half of them don't know their arses from their elbows and don't have a grasp of what it's like to live on basic wages or try to meet the bills.
Sorry..was frothing. I meant to say, most of them ludicrously more than the average wage but the average person won't see a payrise for a number of years because of the economic climate. Doh!
Earn ludicrously more. Froth less, think more Badasahatter!
kerala we're told that there's no money for pay rises.
NHS workers who save lives with their skills are told by Jeremy hunt that they can't even have 1%.
Yet there's money for 11% for MPs?
So I will happily form part of the baying mob.
Hmm. Bad timing for them to award themselves an 11% pay rise just before a general election methinks. Shouldn't they have waited until afterwards?!
Oh well, we're all in this together I suppose. For example, did you know MPs get £75 breakfast money per week?
How many million is it for HS2 by the way?
How many millions have been wasted on the Welfare Reform fisaco?
How many millions is IDS about to write off because of his imcompetence?
How many teachers and TA's are about to loose their jobs thanks to Gove?
How many millions have been wasted with MP's claims?
How many millions is it going to cost to refrub and re build the Houses of Parliament?
and yet, normal hardworking every day people are told time after time - there is no money.
It really is no wonder why so many people are sick to back teeth of the whole lot of them. Liars, theives, law breakers, clueless, piss taking greedy, waste of organs. Do I sound angry? Too fucking right I am.
As I understand it their pension contributions will increase so overall it will be fiscally neutral, but still when other public sector pensions have changed there sure as heck have not been corresponding increases in salary.
I just don't buy the argument about needing to pay more to get the best. I don't think we necessarily want a homogenous group who would all be the types to pursue high-flying careers (not sure they'd make the best MPs anyway) and there are many people in public sector who could increase salary doing something else.
In practice they have little responsibility - I think they even get paid extra if sitting on Select Committees etc.
£75 breakfast money a week! FFS a lot of people, who contribute to their salaries through taxes, can't afford that on a weekly food shop! They are getting too greedy me'thinks in these times of austerity.
They should really practise what they preach.
I couldn't agree more with the majority here. I have had cause to write to my MP about an issue that mattered to, and he clearly hadn't even looked into the matter before sending an incoherent response. He did pass my concerns onto the minister involved in the proposed changes, and she completely ignored my point/concern, churning out her party's bollocks justifying their stance. Neither actually took any heed of what I said. Neither are worthy of the current salary, never mind an 11% rise.
It's bloody difficult maintaining family life when you work away and they do really long hours.
Yes it is. And for those of us doing that who are not MPs, where's our 11% pay rise? Or even 1%? Not to mention our luxury flat close to work paid for by our employer?
Tension, I had the exact same response from my MP and made it cearly obvious that he hadn't even bothered reading my letter at all.
(I can spell incompentence by the way, just when I'm calmer).
Horrible times for lots of people these days, and these lot are just rubbing our faces in it, along with the fat, juicy pensions they can look forward to! Greedy swines.
My pay is being cut next year because of single status. I am doing exactly the same job. Yanbu, it makes me so angry.
I have to wear a ballistic vest to go to work, take a yearly fitness test to prove I'm fit enough, I have had my pay frozen for 5 years and now have a 1% a year pay rise which frankly I'm grateful to get, and fully aware I'm still in a better position than most. My hours are regularly 12 -15 hrs daily, I am about as popular as herpes thanks to a certain MP and I am legally barred from a second job. I will work throughout christmas and my dc's will perform in their christmas plays without me watching. Do I think MP's are worth 11%? Frankly, not a chance.
Are the last few posts (and the many earlier ones) explaining the vitriol adequately kerala?
Thank you for the wonderful job you do Rosie
We're all in this together
But some are more together than others.
I really hate that "you need to attract the best" way of thinking when large incomes and bonuses have to be justified. It used to be said about the greedy bankers who then went on to prove they certainly weren't the best. MPs in general are a load of greedy, two faced lying hypocrites and I'd love to know what it is they've done to be ever described as "the best".
Rosie- you would justify an 11% pay rise, along with many others who put their lives at risk and work hard to save lives.
It's the hypocrisy kerala. They're standing up say after day and saying 'no pay rise for you, no pay rise for you, definitely no pay rise for you! and as for you, well, no job for you. Simply no money, last government legacy, hands tied, nothing we can do, oh, and we're cutting funding for all your vital services too.......11% pay rise for us? Don't mind if we do. Because we're worth it.'
My last MP was
Margaret Moran a useless, greedy thief. Guess who gets the full MP pension?
There was a Newsnight segment yonks ago where MPs said they would happily take a pay cut. So I'm guessing they will all refuse this payrise suggestion then?
Thank you from all of us, millenniumbug & vevvie feel a little warm glow for a change.
Rosie I'd happily give you 11% and more. Along with the amazing midwives who delivered my DDs, the great teachers in their state schools who are doing such a good job educating them, and the incredibly lovely UKBA lady (and I have slated UKBA before, but not this lady) who asked me what was wrong when I came back after a very distressing visit to my parents in Holland. You are all worth it.
MPs - not so much.
CakeTinRosie you are going to have to narrow it down a bit more. Many MPs <glares at the obvious> have been
shitstirring bastards rogues just lately so it's hard to tell
Hmm looks for pin and MP's directory to
spear locate the bastards baddies.
In the last 5 minutes of the news:
MPS proposed 11% pay rise, followed by the fact that 13 million (13 MILLION - NEARLY 1/4 OF THE POPULATION) are living below the poverty line and have experienced an 8% drop in income.
These are the people who won't be able to afford a pension - they will have to work in their low paid/part-time/zero-hour contract jobs until they're 70, whilst the MPs take early retirement and live the life of Riley.
Everyone should tweet David Cameron and ask him how we're all in this together.
He would just tweet back that the Three main leaders didn't want it or so I'm led to believe and that there is nothing they can do as it's an independent body that has made this decision.
In short - he will worm his way out of it, just like all the others will and take the money while laughing at us all.
Nope. Still stand by my view that its fair enough. Plus its not MPs that have decided this its an independent body. MPs have been underpaid for years as too scared of public opinion (see above) to raise salaries. Thats what led to the expenses scandal. Don't see why MPs should be paid less than primary head teachers/GPs those are jobs I would see as comparable. They are doing 60 plus hour weeks. Seems am alone in my view but hey ho I'll leave you to your MP bashing looks like fun.
It's equally fair that I should have a rise, and plenty of other people.
What is you understanding of the word "fair" when it applies to MPs and not to anyone else?
Surely salary level a complex mix of what the market will pay for particular skills, what amount is required to attract decent candidates etc. The independent body has decided MPs should be paid more which to me seems correct. Why should the local MP get paid less than an equivalent professional? Why are you not frothing about council officials, GPs, senior teachers all these get relatively high salaries from the state. MPs are easy targets thats why. Am sure some of them are substandard but most aren't. Still dont want to get in your way of a good MP bash.
Scottish Parliament intending to break pay link with Westminster so they will not get a pay increase.
You used the word fair.
Are you willing to explain what the word means to you?
What do you mean? Fair is a salary that a comparable professional would expect to receive for a job. If MPs are low paid in comparison to similar jobs fewer high quality candidates will want to become MPs. So it will attract lower quality people or those who have a private income.
Oh, I see. So in your lexicon, "fair" does invlude a meaning "applies to all equally"
Is there currently a shortage of people wanting to be MPs so that the salary needs to be increased to make it attractive?
Are you suggesting that the current crop of MPs are of lower quality than you would get if the wages were higher, and that we need better quality MPs so we need to increase the salary and oust this lot?
Because otherwise, you have to argue that the current lot who went into being an MP knowing about, and happy to accept the current salary deserve a big fat pay rise, where loads of other people in different jobs on much shittier wages don't get any pay rise at all.
Oh, I see. So in your lexicon, "fair" does not include a meaning "applies to all equally"
Instead of looking at MPs as some conglomerate mass, have a look at your local MP and what they do and think whether they're worthy of that pay. Are they doing enough to justify that wage?
I think that my local MP is - she works hard for our constituency, has argued for a lot of projects that have really helped the community and has spent time listening to people and taking their points on board. It also helps that she's worked prior to politics rather than being a career politician, and that she doesn't come from a political background and I genuinely believe she's trying to do the right thing.
Other MPs near us are useless - they sit in the same seats year after year doing bog all for their constituents because they think they're safe in their role and yet people just keep on voting for them - they shouldn't be getting a 11% pay rise, they should be getting replaced by someone worth the wage.
Callani, but isn't that what your MP is supposed to be doing? Has she been doing it well enough to really justify an 11% pay rise?
In most jobs, to get an 11% pay rise, how many grades would you have to go up? You'd likely have to start doing a lot more to justify such an increase.
But MPs are just going to be handed it on a plate.
"particular skills, what amount is required to attract decent candidates "
A vast majority of MP don't even fit THAT criteria. How the hell you can compare them to GP's I'll never know. GP's do something that MP's never do - and that is listen. A fairly basic requirement of any job really.
GPs and Senior teachers have worked bloody hard to get where they are and deserve every single penny they get and more- MP's breeze through life of luxury, everything given to them on a plate, do fuck all in return and expect more just for breathing. Most of them can not even do their jobs properly - if it was any GP or teacher did what MP's get away with they would have been struck off in an instant and shown the door with a boot up their arse after the first major mistake or report that shows they are failing.
I think you are living in the wrong society if you believe everyone should get paid the same irrespective of brainpower/qualification/skill. Of course salaries differ. You can get furious that their salaries are higher than say a midwife. But equally in comparison to a GP, senior teacher or council bigwig they are relatively low paid. And thats not even taking into account what many of them could be earning in the City. You would splutter your lunch if you knew what junior solicitors were paid in the City - more than the PM. You may not like it but thats the way our whole system works MPs pay is just a symptom of that and it seems naive to rail against it.
Not naive at all. Very sensible I would have thought to question exactly how they plan to show that 11% represents value for money rather than just dismiss it by saying it's nothing more than vitriol.
Really? I know several GPs and the MPs I know work way way harder. But thats just anecdotal. But your everything on a plate comment is wrong. Have you read Alan Johnson's biography?
That said I agree with you when it comes to Jacob Rees Mogg
Interesting - I know several GPs and MPs too, and the GPs work far harder than the MPs.
kerala, I see you used the word "fair" but you are not comfortable with its meaning. Is English your first language?
I could be earning more in the City. I'm a maths teacher. So why aren't I being paid as much as someone in the City?
If they could earn more in the City, why aren't they working in the City? Presumably because they want to be an MP. So long as they aren't being paid buttons, the wages really don't need to be at the same level.
The question is, are the current wages high enough for recruitment purposes?
Is there a shortage of prospective MPs?
I totally see your point noble but MPs themselves don't get a say in what they get given and I'd be a hypocrite to expect someone to turn down a pay rise that I'd happily take.
I think my point is that whether you agree with the payrise, you should be assessing the MP on the quality of their work and voting for or against them on the strength of this.
In my case I think that my MP is worth £74k a year, and I think I'm lucky to have an MP worth that much because that means that she's doing enough good that she equals 3 teachers, or 4 nurses, because she is helping that many people by improving our community. I also genuinely think that if you went around my local area and asked everyone for 35p to pay her salary, most people would be happy to give it up - because she is a good MP.
Obviously lots of MPs are not good, and I think they should be replaced which is a question for voters. I also think there are a lot of public sector workers not being paid their dues which I would also change if I could but that's not the issue here.
Yes it is - thats an odd thing to say. Fair is subjective though. I think these raises are fair, you don't. Thats all to be said really.
Why do MPs work long weeks and have long holidays? Surely it'd be easier to "attract the best people" if the working conditions were looked at.
Some have cited childcare issues as a reason for high pay. How many MPs have young families needing extra childcare, and wouldn't it be great if MPs could work, say, 40 hours a week but 48 weeks a year?
Also, more people would be attracted to life as an MP if it were possible to telecommute for parliamentary sittings or job-share.
This is not simply a pay issue, perhaps a shake-up of how parliament works is due.
But that's not going to happen, because it would mean admitting that the best people for an MPs job might not be after the money, but after a way to help their community.
Heaven forbid those people should get in...
'One of the people I know is super bright could be on twice her salary in the city but feels passionately about improving things so is in politics. It's tough on her and her little daughter. So no wont be joining the baying mob'
So your friend is earning about half a city salary? You are calling that 'tough' - I'd call it probably more than most people are ever likely to earn.
LOL at your conception of tough...do they have to use a food bank?
I have NC for this as am a regular on a specific board and dont want to have too much about my job etc known. .
I don't think many people realise that I got a 20% pay CUT from the government this week. I work as a medical expert in the Family Court, assessing and giving evidence the most severe types of cases of child abuse and neglect. This type of work is paid by legal aid, and our rates of pay were simply cut by 20% as of Monday this week. There was a so-called "consultation" process by government but we all knew it be a charade. We were told by MPs and ministers that the cuts simply had to be made and so, bang, 20% off your pay.
You can imagine my feelings about a pay rise for MPs!
OK, kerala, so you should be (but are not) familiar with the concept of Fairness, and you use the word "fair" incorrectly.
What do you understand the slogan "We're all in this together" to mean?
Rooners you are missing the point. Of course its not "tough" in comparison to people who are struggling on benefits/disabled/unemployed. But she is in a fortunate position of being extremely talented so could choose another, easier and more lucrative job but has chosen politics because she wants to help people etc (she is on the left). She lives apart from her young daughter in the week. If I were her with her opportunities no way would I make her choices.
I think its a meaningless political slogan piglet john! Right I must do some work
Kerala I went to uni with very many people who were incredibly smart, and could easily have worked in the city earning 6 figure salaries.
Some of them are doctors, lawyers, journalists, accountants, teachers, etc, because they wanted to help people. But they could have worked in the city, (as could I), so should we all be given the 6 figure salary too?
That is the weirdest rational I ever heard!
Diddums. They are working 145 days next year. It is a part-time job with subsided alcohol, a breakfast budget equivalent to many people's entire week.y food budget, gold-plated pension, free second home (now what they do is rent from each other so they still get their mortgages paid), transport, free utilities, etc etc.
Oh, and free to take on consulting or other work.
And they aren't paid enough?
What on earth makes you think that is just those on benefits/disabled and the unemployed that use food banks? We get loads who work but just can't afford food after the rent, travel and heating.
Expat i was thinking about that £75 a week breakfast budget they have, that would feed myself and the kids 3 meals a day for just shy of 2 weeks.
Let me explore the concept of fairness.
It's quite fair that I should have a Christmas dinner to comprise a salmon starter with champagne, roast turkey, christmas pudding, followed by mince pies and brandy. Nothing wrong with that, it's perfectly fair. Lots of people with similar responsibilitie expect the same. Now consider that due to a downturn in business, times are hard, so I have explained to the smaller piglets that there will be no presents this year, and they will be getting cornflakes for their Christas dinner, because there is no money left for anything better. Surelely it is "fair" (in a kerala sense) for me to expect Mrs Piglet to serve up my dinner on a tray in the drawing room, then she and the smaller piglets can sit quietly in the scullery with their cornflakes and newspaper-hats? I will brook no complaints in my house, kerala.
Bet those in the comparable jobs have to pay for their own power/gas.
MPs can do other jobs too (eg David Cameron can be prime minister and an MP). So I have even less sympathy for the argument that they need such a salary. Maybe it should be pro-rata based on actual days worked on the job.
why the fuck can't they get a salary and that is it? why all the extras? why are we buying them breakfast?!
if they work so little why do they all need second homes? why cant they share a travel lodge room with their mp mates?
imagine James and Barnaby having to share lol.
"why the fuck can't they get a salary and that is it? why all the extras? why are we buying them breakfast?!"
I have a job (private sector) that involves a lot of travel. When I travel the company pays my hotel bills, transport costs, meals (including breakfast)... all of which I claim back with receipts rather than paying out of my own salary. That's how it works in the real world.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
But Cogito, you are staying in a hotel. The MPs have a second home, paid for by us, where surely they could keep a box of Weetabix.
if you worked "every day" at the Palace of Westminster, it would be classed as your Normal Place of Work so you would have a hard job getting travel and accomodation paid for without it being a taxable benefit.
When doctors are on call in hospitals they have access to a room in which to sleep.
They are not furnished with a second home at the taxpayers expense, near the hospital to fulfill their duties.
This also occurs in the real world.
My DH is a physio and doesn't have a room to sleep in when he's on call. He just has to hope there's somewhere available if he gets called in.
I'm disgusted, I'm a nurse and I'm sure when our 1% pay rise was announced we were told we had to do our bit for economy. So when are the MPs going to do their bit?
It one rule for one....
Its going to end up with riots in the strreets again, and i wouldnt be surprised. for my personally this is the straw thats broken the camels back.
they dont fecking give a flying duck about 'were all in this together' us.
Kerala the question isn't about how much MPs are paid, it is about whether they should have a massive pay rise when the rest of the public sector and the private sector too have had either 1) pay cuts. 2) nothing at all, or 3) pay rises so small that inflation has swallowed them up.
Clearly you do not think we are all in this together.
Police officers have been subject to review after review for the last few years . First Hutton , which has buggered my pension , so much so that I've now decided to leave early and take a smaller pension rather than chase and fight 18 year old robbers when I'm 60 . Then Winsor , which , much in the way of the justification for the pay rise for MP's went on and on about attracting 'the best and most talented ' to do the job . He then recommended CUTTING the starting wage for probationers to 19k . Which isn't going to attract anyone with a degree for a start . In the last 3 years , I've had NO pay rises . None . I have however lost 3.5k in allowances , which apparently were to reward me for being one of the most experienced and hardworking officers . And taking a second job is nigh on impossible due to the ridiculous shift pattern which means the only thing you can do on rest days is sleep .
Oh and we had our pay award recommended as a rise by an independent pay body too . The government ignored it and gave us fuck all , so it's not as if there's no precedent for going against an independent pay review , is there ?
So , if my talent and skills aren't recognised , if my hard work isn't recognised , if the fact that I too could earn much much more in the private sector using the same skills I've used much to the police service's advantage, then what the fuck makes them so different ? Apart from a subsidised canteen , a truly truly platinum plated pension and a free seat in first class on the last surviving gravy train .
Plomino beautifully put, well done shooting the pay rise apologists down in flames.
plomino my dh is the same and me too as I'm sw.
We will either retire early and lose loads of money or as you say be chasing baddies/being responsible fir children's safety when we are in our sixties
Could their pay be means tested ? therefore the independently wealthy get bugger all and those who are not get a decent wage ? That sounds fair .
Someone upthread mentioned performance related pay. I still think that's the best idea mentioned so far.
I agree wholeheartedly with Kerala.
Worth an 11 % pay rise? Really???!!!
These people run the country. You might not agree with how they do so, but that's what, y'know, your vote is for. Or, you can run for election yourselves if you think you can do a better job.
Perhaps an 11% rise is excessive (however, let's not forget they aren't the ones who actually decide the amount), but saying they should get minimum wage or the average wage or not get expenses is clearly fucking stupid.
This is going to sound offensive, but ...
£74k in the City is not a whole heap of money. It really is not. You are comparing what you earn outside London with what someone earns inside London. There is a metrobubble effect. You might ask why these people are paid so little. That's actually a reasonable question (and why their expenses are so gross). Remember that these folk are on short-term contracts.
Very few of them have transferable skills. Remember those desperate appearances on reality TV shows? That's because they are well nigh unemployable anywhere else. There isn't much around for unskilled middle management.
They get £75 a week for breakfast . To eat at the Palace of Westminster , which is already subsidised as it is .
When I am on aid , which can start in the early hours of the morning , and lasts until I am dismissed ( which can be 14 - 20 hours long ) , and can mean that we end up anywhere and not always even within the Met , I am no longer entitled to operational feeding at all . Which now means that in the midst of public order situations , you now have carriers of police officers either going without , or queued up outside McDonald's , which looks just great for the image .
I know who I'd rather be paying to feed , and it's not those with their snouts in the trough right now .
the question isn't about how much MPs are paid
Actually I think that is the question. Whenever MPs get a pay rise there are howls of indignation. As a result, contrary to popular belief, MP's pay has been going up slower than average wages for years. If they had kept pace since 1964 MPs would now be on £85k+ rather than £66k.
My view is that there is never a good time to increase MPs pay (and now is one of the worst times possible) but it needs doing.
I note that a number of MPs have already said they will reject this rise.
And they lose their "truly platinum plated pension" as part of this with contributions going up and the final pension falling in line with the rest of the public sector by being based on career average earnings.
It's not falling in line with the rest of the public sector . They accrue 1/40th of their salary every year . My pension has changed to 1/60th . They pay 13.75 per cent. I pay 14.2 per cent . I pay for my own meals , my own travel lodge stays when I've finished way behind the last train home , I pay the extra tax for my already paid for travel , and the cost of my 200 mile daily commute in fuel costs when there is no public transport . As do nurses , doctors , social workers , civil servants , police staff , teachers , firefighters and paramedics .
I note they have SAID they will reject this rise . I await with interest the proof that they have . Or if they cannot reject it , perhaps they would like to donate it to a deserving cause . Like a food bank for those who don't get their food paid for .
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Yes MPs' pay hasn't risen much but their allowances most certainly have to compensate.
So sorry but no sympathy here.
plus it's a part time job. They can take on other jobs including being a prime minister. Which pays more.
Google and read the MPs' register of interests.
MPs salaries haven't kept pace with what? With the so-called comparable professions? I and others have already said up thread that we're not convinced the professions are comparable.
The salaries of teachers have not 'kept pace' either and yet the government continues to implement a pay freeze, despite recommendations for a rise by the SSRB. That's the problem here, that MPs are getting a rise while other public sector workers are not. And the rise they are set to get is huge.
What would an MP's salary be if they worked full time and how does that compare to the City?
The only good thing about these rises is that it clearly shows up the hypocrisy and lies behind the austerity measures- that it is not in fact a case of "we have no money, we have to cut" but "we choose to cut for ideological reasons".
The main political leaders have said that they think the rises are wrong, but it is noticeable that not one of them has said "11%? That would be nice, but we can't afford it."
KidLorneRoll, what's "clearly fucking stupid" is you failing to recognise that MPs do not run the country, that's what the cabinet ministers are there for, getting paid more than twice what an MP does. So give over.
Also, they are paid pretty well in comparison to what someone in the City would get paid who worked part time, no transferable skills, and was a middle management type. AND they get expenses for most City workers normal everyday costs.
The point is, 11%, when the rest of the public sector are also due a raise but there is no money for it, is abhorrent.
OK, IIRC correctly I read something that indicated each MEP gets more than an MP (and with allowances etc is in the region of £400K), Don't forget to have a go at local council workers who earn more than £100k. Head teachers who also earn over £100K (and there are some). There are bigger scandals right there.
Also whilst some have bought politics into this and blamed Dave, just remember the pay body was envised, set up and the head of it appointed by Labour whilst they were in government.
I still think it's wrong to give them 11% with all the other benefits they get, but there are far more important things to get angry about.
I work for two MPs. Both do it full time, neither has a second income, both stay in rented flats in London and don't claim for bills etc. Both are conservative btw in case that makes a difference). Both were/are main wage earners at home as wives are still expected by constituency workers to have an unpaid role.
I wanted to stand for parliament 20 years ago and did in a seat I wouldn't win. My intention was to go on to the next election in a better one but I had a family. I was approached 5 years ago and asked to have another go but it is the last thing I would want to do now. I've seem so many marriages split up due to the long hours away from home and the constant demands 7 days a week. At least when I go home I can have a break. I know females MPs who struggle to combine family 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.
The vitriol on this thread against all MPs regardless of whether they would like the money is ridiculous. They have NO SAY.
Keep ensuring that MPs are paid less than average GPs or head teachers and you will only get those who either have no worth in the job market or who are independently wealthy standing for parliament.
GPs do 4/5 years at university, after getting mostly straight A grades through school, then all their rotation years, and are medical professionals. That compares to the average bog-standard MP how exactly?
europe is an even bigger gravy train and disgrace
mps don't have much responsibility now it is all 3 line whips and party politics
at least head teachers and heads of local councils do a proper job although I wouldnt pay them more than an mp either
for me it is the equivalent of a part time middle manager in sales.
Netguru but many MPs can work in other jobs.
And they have hefty allowances.
MPs are not under paid by any stretch. Let's not pretend now.
To top it off, GPs and all the other public sector workers have 1% pay rises and have done for years. Why should MPs get a bigger one now when supposedly there's no money.
That's what makes me so angry.
maybe junior sales really as there is little responsibility
it should really be the same pay as jobs that are done for the good of wider society and to help others eg social workers nurses teachers police
conditions should be improved to make it 9-5 wherever possible although of course nurses and police work shifts
pay rises should be linked to general public sector pay rises
perhaps increments for relevant qualifications such as a degree in their subject or a field of interest such as a committee they are on
by banging on about pay in the city we give the impression we want a bunch of amoral dickheads running the country. no thanks.
not running the country as that is not what backbenchers do
representing their constituents
they also need a better hr policy. no more sexism thanks. sack those ones.
Keep ensuring that MPs are paid less than average GPs or head teachers and you will only get those who either have no worth in the job market or who are independently wealthy standing for parliament
Are you saying that people on less than £100k (average salary for GP) are worthless in the job market?!! That's ridiculous.
I don't hate MPs. I know they can work long hours, but they don't actually have that much responsibility and do get quite a lot of perks.
Everyone should write to their MP and say that if they plan to take up the 11% increase, they will not be getting their vote in the 2015 election. Should sharpen some of their minds to the issue.
Agree op i'm furious too!!
What a waste of money, when there are people out there that work hard for a pittance!
These Mps are a joke, their gas is paid, their homes are paid for, they are paid far too much money and to top it off, then there are expenses thet claim for too!
And fwiw Gps do a lot of hard work to get where they are, hardly a comparision is it!
It's easily searchable (made up word sorry) but at last count there were over 2500 local authority employees on over 100K per annum
Also over 700 gp's earned over £200K, now I know we are not comparing, but there are only 650 odd MP's.
800 Headteachers over £100,00 and what are the teaching staff getting by comparison. That's about a quarter of all STATE school heads earning over 6 figures
Don't pick on MP's for their salary, moan about the percentage increase yes, but not the value.
Tell me bobby can these other professions claim the level of expenses that MPs can?
Yes MPs' pay hasn't risen much but their allowances most certainly have to compensate
That was indeed what happened in the past. MPs were told they couldn't have a proper pay rise but their expenses would be increased as a back door way of giving them a rise. Then the public became outraged at expenses and changes were brought in to limit the amounts they can claim. The proposed changes introduce further limits. For example, MPs will no longer be entitled to claim for an evening meal when a sitting lasts beyond 7:30pm. According to IPSA this will bring MPs into line with what a typical professional would expect to receive in expenses. Whilst I don't know whether that will be the result of these changes I think that is the right goal.
They accrue 1/40th of their salary every year
If the IPSA sticks to its original proposals that will be reduced to 1/51st per year and contributions will be increased. Whilst this is a better deal than you tell us you are getting it is, according to the Hutton report, on a par with other public sector pensions. Of course, within the public sector some do better than others. And it is still generally the case that public sector pensions are better than those on offer in the private sector.
it's a part time job
It is true that we allow MPs to take on additional jobs but the most recent independent research available suggests that the average MP works 70 hours per week on parliamentary and constituency issues, which doesn't sound very part time to me. There are, of course, some who are much harder working than others. One of the problems I see in our system is that it is almost impossible to remove a lazy MP if they manage to get elected in a safe seat.
And on a point raised by a number of posters, paying a high salary doesn't guarantee that you will get the best people but paying a low salary pretty much guarantees that you won't.
Tell me bobby can these other professions claim the level of expenses that MPs can
Remember that MPs have to claim on expenses things that in most other jobs wouldn't be handled this way, e.g. office equipment, stationery, postage and staff costs. According to IPSA the additional changes they are making will bring MPs expenses in line with typical professionals.
65k isn't a low salary. It's in the top ten percent.
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.
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?
I will add I think the current salary is fine!
agree 00 percent steamwisher
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
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.
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.
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!)
And KidLorne MPs get another years salary if they're not re-elected. Hardly "insecure".
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.
It is preposterous!
If it were easier, I'd stand for mp just for the perks
After 2015, it goes down to 17% of salary, so more like a redundancy payment.
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.
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.
"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?
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?
I'm getting into the Tumbril business.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.