MPs' expenses: things for policywonk to say if she gets the chance

Effie if you have been a senior person in the NHS for 20 years you will get a not-dissimilar figure

Yep, that's it - for the 10% of their salary that they pay in each year (£6,476), the state contributes three times that (about £19,428), to keep the pot at the level which will give them their proper pension. Nice work if you can get it...

Oh, I see what you mean, read your first post as MPs paying in ten per cent of salary = heavily subsidised. Think you are now saying 'employer' (i.e. taxpayer) contributes three times as much as the MP pays in?

Think my employer merely matched my contributions (and has now closed the final salary scheme anyway so won't be any money left by the time I retire).

edam it is heavily subsidised. The ratio of how much the state pays into MPs pension funds compared with what they contribute themselves is currently about 3:1. In my public sector job, the employer matched my contributions, so the ratio was just 1:1. That's very normal, I believe.

ten per cent of your salary isn't 'heavily subsidised' am sure when I was in a company pension scheme I was only paying in three per cent or something (will only get a crap pension mind you).

MPs do not get a 'full' pension for life - the amount they receive entirely relates to how long they have served for, and how long they have contributed to their pension fund for. If they've been an MP for 20 years, they get around £30k annual pension. This is, of course, considerable compared with most of the public sector, but if they have only held office for a single term, they only receive a fraction of that amount.

The pensions are hugely subsidised however; the MPs pay in 10% of their salaries. The rest is state funded.

I had a great idea

Let the Queen move to Windsor and convert Buck Palace into 600 luxury flats

Problem solved

I keep missing the MN political activist threads and by the time I get here there are thousands of incredible intelligent posts that do not do for skim reading..............

However, all sounds fabulously exciting PW - well done !

Just on the expenses thing............I know that this is endemic in the system - local councillors are also claiming obscene amounts and treating expenses as a way to up their salaries......and so this is going to rumble on for a long time.

And personally, the only thing that needs changing is the transparency. The system is absolutely fine IMHO. They are not allowed to claim for things which are not needed to complete their duties as MPs. And I am guessing that a duck island (WTF?) doesn't help someone do their MP duties ! So, so long as there is transparency, for me the system is fine.

As for those whose integrity is questioned. Just get them out. There is no justification and no "it's the system's fault" and "it was within the rules". It wasn't. They were broken and get them out.

(Am not a GP btw, and do not earn anything like the same amounts.)

Btw, comparison with they pay of GPs is a bit misleading. It's only partners in GP practices who earn anything like £100k - basically they have bought a share in the GP practice, taking out a mortgage to do so. The partners kind of divvy up what the practice earns, deduct costs such as staff, equipment and premises, and take a share of the profits.

But a huge proportion of GPs are salaried doctors, who don't own the practice, and earn well under £100k, let alone £150k. They aren't exactly on the minimum wage, but comparing MP pay against the very few top earners in any other profession is a bit of skulduggery.

Btw, those GPs who do earn ££££s do it as a result of a new contract agreed by particularly stupid government + civil servants who thought it was a good idea to tell GPs what to do - they have boxes to tick and if they tick enough of them (putting all patients with heart disease on a register and getting people's cholesterol levels down) they get money.

Ministers and civil servants failed to realise GPs are a. very bright and b. small businessmen/women good at extracting the most from any system. And c. pissed off by being treated like robots.

They thought GPs were crap and would struggle to hit the targets. Completely underestimated what GPs were already doing and set the targets too low.

So it is entirely the government's fault that GP pay for prinicpals has gone up hugely!

sorry, went to bed but thank you for the thumbs up on the Blears thread, PW. I was beginning to feel like the only person on MN who thought a politican's actions were more important than odgy dye-jobs (though I know that's not true really - it just felt like it for a second).

Are all the MPs who are leaving office in disgrace going to get their full pensions? No one seems to be talking about this, but I think they can get full pensions after one term (which is shocking in itself and should be changed) so they should definatly not get them if they are forced out!

I had the (ex) leader of the NF teach me Politics A Level. I got an A (can't remember the board, sorry).

went onto mumsnet as i had been missing the G20 thread so thanks for this

mumsnet as a political force.. nice one pw for represnting so well once more

thought you might like to know when i went out onto the roof at the houses of parliament there was men in costumes drinking wine out of silver goblets

Fabulous, pw - well done on your swotty efficient two questions.

Esther has apparently confirmed that she will be standing at the next election, btw www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3626938/esther-rantzen-mp.thtml

To answer your question from hours ago PW (have been distracted by writing out 5yr old party invites). I like the fact that our constitution is shaped by experience. I also don't like the various hijacking of constitutional rights that is endemic in the USA - eg NRA and the right to bear arms.

If you have a written constitution then you are on a slippery slope towards an elected judiciary and all that that entails.

You must have me confused with another llama.

I never orgasm. Too many fecking kids.

And swine flu.

here