The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), the new organisation which sets MPs' pay, conditions and expenses, is running a public consultation on their recommended new approach for paying MPs. They are keen to hear your views on their recommendations.
According to IPSA, their recommended package has these five main parts:
1) A salary of £74,000 a year, and movement in line with national average wages so that politicians' pay is tied to the fortunes of all workers. If national wages rise, MPs' wages rise. If national wages fall, MPs' wages fall. 2) MPs' pensions cut back into line with the rest of the public sector, rather than the more generous pension MPs receive today. 3) Redundancy payments cut back into line with the rest of the public sector. In 2010, every MP who left parliament was entitled to a payment worth up to a full year's salary ? around £65,000. IPSA is recommending that only MPs who fight for re-election and lose should be entitled to a payment, and it should be heavily reduced, so it is in line with other redundancy packages. 4) Expenses cut and brought into line with other modern professionals. No more claiming for evening meals, hospitality, or TV licences. 5) Annual reports so that constituents know what MPs do. Research shows most people don't know what their MP does. IPSA believes that regular reporting and accountability are a part of modern professionalism, and should be brought in for MPs. Are there specific things you would you like to know about what your MP does?
The new package will start after the 2015 election and, alongside the changes already made to MPs' expenses, IPSA says it will save the taxpayer £7m a year.
IPSA is keen to know what you think of this proposed package and what you would like MPs to include in an annual report. You can read the full consultation document here (pdf), and submit your response by filling out this quick survey, writing them an email or adding your views to this thread.
IPSA will analyse all the responses they receive to the consultation and make a final decision in autumn this year.
I completely disagree with the pay rise. After all, 'we are all in this together'. In this age of austerity measures I don't think they can justify any kind of increase, after all they already earn well above the national average and can take second / third jobs if they can't get by on their wage.
I agree with the cutting pensions, expenses and having to give a report on what they do. I particularly object to subsidising their bar.
I'm not sure about the redundancy package. After all, if they stand for re-election and fail to gain enough votes, surely that is because they are not good enough at their jobs? Why should we be expected to pay huge amounts for their failure? But then, they have given service so should receive some kind of pay off. Hmm, will have to give that one more thought.
Really arbitraty what jobs require you to stay completely away from your partner and children 3-4 nights out of 7? This isn't just not seeing your kids but getting home in time for a quick glass of wine and sex with your partner, but the isolation (unless you move your family backwards and forwards between two bases) of no family all week.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I really can't think of many circumstances where this is the case week in week out. Maybe sales people, but they tend to earn good salaries too.
Why do MPs have to be in London so much? Why can't they conference call/VOIP/Skype etc? Lots of industries use technology to allow workers in different physical locations to work effectively together, so why not politics? I think if MPs need to stay in London, they should stay in a government owned building, in a one bedroom apartment with a desk and secure Internet connection. This would make best use of space (let's face it, London property is at a premium), be better for security (one building to keep track of), and should work out cheaper as a single MP does not need an entire house, given they apparently work such long hours. Also, it would make sense to cut the long recesses and instead have a shorter working week for MPs. It would make the job more practical if it involved 2-3 nights away instead of 4-5. The poster who said women with children, in order to serve as MPs would need 24 hour childcare, surely this is also the case for men?
Mrscog, there are plenty of jobs where you will have to be away from home Monday to Friday. It's not necessarily in the terms abd conditions, but it happens to lots of people that the job is so far from home that they can't commute.
My cousin works for a charity in London. His home - wife, kids, dogs - are in Yorkshire. This is the job he's got. No doubt should there be an economic recovery, he may be able to get a job closer to where his family actually lives.
I have a friend who lives down the road. She works in Bristol. Traffic's crap and trains are crap, so she stays there during the week.
Lots of people have been living like that for decades.
I would like to make it a rule that MPs (and their families) have to live in their constituencies. My MP currently lives in Islington, and twitchers claim to have seen him in the constituency on months with an r in them, but I think they are telling fibs.
If they need to spend time in London, as I do for my job, then they should stay in hotels. Subject to rigorous expense limitations. This would put an end to all the nonsense of MPs enriching themselves at our expense.
Oh and i would very happily endorse their travel expenditure. Providing they travel in accordance with civil service guidelines.
By having the 1950s model wife who stays at home and raises the children. Parliament was designed by men and run by men. Things like childcare or family friendly hours never crossed their minds because it was irrelevant to the people who were MPs. Men. Less than a quarter of MPs are women in a country that is over 50% women.
I agree that salaries should be increased. If we want to have a parliament that is representative, we need to make sure that financial considerations aren't a factor in the decision. Would we only want people who already had a trust fund / family wealth or savings from a high flying city job to be able to stand? I'd far rather that a plasterer from Lincoln could stand, if they had an opinion that they believed in.
I agree with other posters that there ought to be a change in culture in parliament. My friend (ex-boss - not a politics related job) became an mp in 2010. I recently visited, and was surprised to find that - even if they weren't attending a debate - they were expected to be around incase there was a vote. This was often until 10 at night. I won't stick up for all MPs, but he certainly earns his money with all the work that he does (it's a shame he's doing it for the wrong party, but still... )
I do think it's right that they should get a decent payout on leaving. Remember, if you're fighting an election you can't very well also be looking for work, so you'd be unceremoniously returned to your constituency on May 6th. If we don't have a compensation for loss of office, who could afford to take that risk? I certainly wouldn't.
a plasterer from lincoln wouldn't be put off standing because of the current salary but because of the costs of running and the realities of candidate selection. sorting that side of things is what will make things more representative, not making it even more lucrative a prospect for the etonians.
|I have a better proposals. 1) They are paid on how they deliver; ensuring crime is cut etc. 2) They are not paid at all and do the prestigious job voluntary! Basically most politicians are a waste of space, who do not represent he public.