What would you like to see MPs paid, and how reimbursed for their expenses, pension scheme, resettlement expenses?

That's just it. The shouting at each other bit is only a fraction of what they do. The bit we see on TV. Most of what they do we don't see.

Working remotely sounds great in theory but in practice it's not a good idea. I've worked from home for several years and I find that so much more can be achieved if you are face to face. Plus factor in the security concerns and government track record on large scale IT projects.

Personally I'd rather have 100 highly paid but well educated, intelligent successful people representing us. It's not just about cost. I'd happily pay more to run parliament if it was more efficient and staffed by cleverer people.

Part of the problem is that many people think that a salary of £60-70k is rich. Unfortunately it's not. You are at best middle class. A GP earns far more. You'd expect a successful company director to earn more too. Top headteachers also earn more I think.

As often said on teacher threads, if it's so much money, such an easy job and easy path to riches, why don't you become an MP?

Personally I cannot think of any other job where you will longer hours, universally hated and damned by the majority no matter what you do.

Totally and utterly agree with NiceGuy's post.
At the moment we pay a relatively small amount of basic pay and we get a load of idiots, some who have never done a days work in any kind of business or outside of politics and they do not have a clue about the world of business, education etc etc. ALL MPs should have a background
of experience in 1 or more specific sectors so that we can get the right people for the job, and we should pay them a salary commensurate to their experience and on a sliding scale, starying at the minimum of the MP payscale (which IMO should be a lot more than it is now) and rising with results.
They should have 'halls of residence' and food should be provided in these halls so there would be no need to pay for London hotels and personal subsistance whilst away from their normal place of residence. Travel cards should be provided (class of travel depending on seniority/security).
Other expenses should be claimed by proof only, i.e. submitting actual receipts, and should be claimable ONLY in the same way as a business can claim - 'being wholly and necessarily required for the business in question'.

Not sure about the idea that we need to pay a lot to get intelligent, committed MPs. We are paying quite a bit now and getting people who treat being an MP as a stepping stone to wealth and power in the private sector and many of the plans they come up with seem to be based on something they thought of on the train into work.

As for second homes I have a better idea. Instead of 630 MPs on benches shouting at each other how about making parliament virtual. Video conferencing if you do it right would be in their interest really as no traveling in just for a vote.

It would be much more flexible. An MP could switch from the commons to a committee conference at will and even have both going at once. They could be there while actually traveling abroad.

You'd need to do it right. Secure means to speak or pass documents to any other MP or group of MPs and to their own staff.

I agree JP. We don't need 630 MP's when a country the size of the US only has around 100 senators.

Edwina Curry was v good on BBC news earlier

it's not on for highly-paid (& often independently wealthy) front-benchers to say that back-benchers shouldn't get more

I think they should be paid more considering the responsibility that they have. However, I would also support a cull of their numbers. A reasonably small country such as ours doesn't need 630 odd MP's and a reduction of lobby fodder would reduce the influence of the whips and thus benefit our democracy.

So which public sector workers deserve a pay cut and which ones deserve a pay rise - seeing as everybody has to put up with the rising cost of living: bills, transport, accommodation, etc.

£60k starting salary for a first time backbencher with a MOD type subsidised housing in London (SSFA) and the same financial support for expenses that military personnel get is perfectly adequate to start with at entry level. The military get tiny pay increases each year and go up a pay band annually too. There is no reason other than greed why this can't be the same for MPs. They could even use the same bloody expensive computer system as the military to save money rather than paying for a new one.

I quite liked 'trouts in the trough'. I had visions of a load of fish all lined up frantically wiggling to get to the front

lol not my finest paragraph but you get the gist!

I agree that pay should be higher (I did at "trouts in the trough" though - I'm guessing autocorrect did that?)

but expenses allowances should be a lot less lavish, & claims should be scrutinised much more closely.

I was about to type a huge post, but basically what niceguy said.

Especially this part.

Because no-one will be thinking about the fact that MP's made the IPSA independent as a result of our outcries about them feathering their own nests. So they're screwed either way. Overrule them and the IPSA isn't independent. Accept the rise and be branded rich pigs with the trouts in the trough. Or the fact in exchange for the rise they lose quite a few expenses. All the press have zoomed in on is the 11% headline figure.

I actually think that the salary should be more like £120-150k, but with allowances and expenses cut hugely.

I'd actually argue that in the long term, MP wages need to go UP drastically. And any drastic pay cut would have a devastating effect on our government.

£60k for an MP sounds like a lot but how many of you would actually do that for a 60+ hour a week job that involves living away from your home, partner and kids for much of the time? A job where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

And who do you think you will attract if you only pay MP's a more 'average' UK wage of £20-30k a year? Two types. At best someone who is too dumb to go work somewhere else for half the hours for the same pay without the commute and hassle. Or someone who is so rich already that they don't care about the salary.

So how many people want even more rich people in parliament? I thought not. How many people want an 'average' person representing them who can't really understand the intricacies of economics or unable to perform on the world stage?

What we desperately need are more intelligent people to become MP's. People who have held down steady jobs, maybe had their own small businesses who understand the trials of having a full time job, juggling family life and making ends meet. And succeeded!

People who have been Doctors, engineers, headteachers, directors of small/medium businesses would in my opinion be ideal. Real experts of their field and in life rather than some rich numpty who has completed a political science degree and never been anything than a career politician.

But those types of people are probably earning very decent money already so offering them a pay cut to do more hours and take on loads of stress??? The whole point is they're not stupid people! What's in it for them?

But as with all things, timing is everything and right now an 11% payrise headline is about as welcome as a fart in a lift. Because no-one will be thinking about the fact that MP's made the IPSA independent as a result of our outcries about them feathering their own nests. So they're screwed either way. Overrule them and the IPSA isn't independent. Accept the rise and be branded rich pigs with the trouts in the trough. Or the fact in exchange for the rise they lose quite a few expenses. All the press have zoomed in on is the 11% headline figure.

The reason councillors have such little influence is because MPs have too much.

Paid a good salary of £60k plus as a starting salary (these people are voted in by us to help run the country) and the same housing/reimbursement system as the MOD.

So who would local people wheel out as their 'big gun' when they need something highlighting or fixing? Not everyone has the funds to access legal representation or lobbyists. Councillors have limited influence.

MPs don't hold constituency surgeries because they care deeply about their constituents. They do it to help get themselves re-elected. They should pay for that themselves.

An MPs job is to be a constituency's representative in Parliament. They do that by making speeches, proposing amendments, crafting new legislation, and most importantly voting.

It's certainly not to be an self-important panjandrum who can cut through government bureaucracy on constituents' behalf by writing letters on HoC crested notepaper. MPs abuse the fact that their position enables this as a way to buy cheap local popularity - and then they have the gall to expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab!

The whole point of an MP, surely, is that they represent the interests of their constituents? So the 'case work' is vital to retain that connection with the day to day problems that their decisions affect. If we just wanted a faceless legislature who treat parliamentary work as bit of a pin-money hobby, we'd appoint a board of highly paid lawyers.... and we're already perilously close to that on all sides of the Commons.

I find it unsettling to agree with ttosca, but here I do. MPs salaries need huge cuts. However, happily I think our agreement will end there.

In my opinion, an MP should not do much constituency 'case work'. They are there to legislate in the Commons, not to be glorified social workers. If they want to buy cheap popularity by pointing at potholes and giving school prize day speeches, they should pay for the related expenses themselves, or get their party to do it.

I think the overall pay bill should be cut by 70%. Part of that should be simply reducing salaries. The rest should be funded by having fewer MPs.

If MPs want more pay, they should do second jobs. Many of them (especially Conservative MPs) already do this, and I applaud them for it.

"what is the justification for a further rise in salary"

Justification has to be a judgement matter based on affordability, fairness & benchmarking the role of MP with other similarly responsible roles in the public sector. Raising MPs' pay is never a popular move - there is always a crisis or a recession or a squeeze on spending - and previous parliaments spent years dodging the issue by compensating MPs' relatively low pay-rises with increasingly generous expenses payments..... and we all know how that ended up. It would probably be the right thing to do to rebalance the pay at a better rate, catch them up with others, and reduce the expenses allowances.... but it'll never go through because everyone wants to look self-sacrificing in the face of austerity.

"Why, it because an average wage is not enough to live on?"

It's not enough to run two homes, one in Central London, & hire administrative staff, no. If you took someone on average wage, asked them if they'd like to apply for a job that involved working very long hours in two different locations including Central London, potentially having their personal life pulled apart in the newspapers and social media, that they could get sacked after just a few years with no warning, and then explained that they'd get no extra for doing so, most of them would say 'no thanks'. I earn over the average wage and I wouldn't see it as an attractive career change...

Here's a UK income comparison calculator.

www.theguardian.com/society/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/22/how-wealthy-you-compared

Using this calculator, I entered yearly income of 66K (just under current MPs salary), married, with two children under 14.

This comes out to a salary which is greater than 90% of the population. That is, the top 10%'ile.

How is this not enough? And what is the justification for a further rise in salary whilst public sector wages are being cut?

Average wage would only attract candidates with either independent means or financial backers. Neither of which would result in MPs like 'normal people'

Why, it because an average wage is not enough to live on?

MPs salaries should be cut by at least 70%.