to think MPs are bonkers to propose that they should get a pay rise!

[TanglednotTamed]

MP payrise proposal

Okay, so it's an 'independent' commission, not MPs themselves, but I would be interested to know just how independent it truly is.

And Sir Ian Kennedy (chairman of commission) is barking to suggest that 'the expenses scandal had been the result of too much pay restraint.'

No, the expenses scandal was because a lot of MPs felt entitled to as much money as they could possibly get! Many of us would feel entitled to more money if we could just help ourselves to it, (see senior bankers...) Fortunately, most of us can't. The people running the country don't need to be compensated for not being able to milk the expenses system any more.

It is sufficiently independent that MPs can't vote in parliament to stop it happening, although individuals can decline the pay rise once it comes about.

I think this is a huge embarassment for the government becuase it comes when public sector workers are being offered 1%, but the commission was set up to stop MPs being seen to make these decisions for themselves and being seen as lining their own pockets.

My mum's a social worker, does a public service that helps vulnerable people everyday and can barely afford her mortgage on a tiny house because everything's going up but her pay has been frozen for 2 years and counting. It is absolutely disgusting. What will it take for people to see what is really happening?

People don't seem to care until it happens to them. Such a sorry state of affairs.

The commission is entirely independent. MP's aren't stupid, they know exactly how bad an inflation busting payrise looks at this time, and most really don't want it to happen. Won't stop lots of them accepting it if its forced on them, though.

I think it's a joke that this commission would even think about this right now, I think it's an embarrassment to David Cameron and other MP's and I would love to know how many of the MPs will actually turn it down if it gets passed!

I know many have rejected the idea but only some and they're not making it very clear for the time being.

I'm no supporter of MPs but have to point out that in this case, the pay rise was proposed by independant organisation, IPSA and that it also comes on the proviso of reduced allowances, included meal allowances if parliamentary meetings run beyond 19:30. I also have to say that I would be in favour of a pay rise to a higher transparent wage with no allowances to make it far more difficult to fiddle the system.

I think it's ridiculous that people can justify that size of pay rise for one area "because we have to attract the top people" whilst being more than happy to justify giving no/ minimal raises to the majority.

The same thing happened with the bankers and we didn't exactly end up with a load of experts there, did we?

Maybe they will remember 'we are all in this together' and turn it down. Carers are getting 1%. Carers who survive on £55 a week while Caring 144 hours a week. Subject to bedroom tax etc
Ooo look, a flying pig.

I will probably get stoned to death for saying this, but 66K is not by any means a 'good' salary for a senior person, by London standards, and I don't think it's massively unreasonable to increase it. 77K is still not very high. I know these things are very relative, that many public sector workers have not had a payrise in years, and that most people get by on much less. But for a senior, powerful person in London 77K is bumping along the bottom of what's reasonable.

Also I think this is a sop to the new regs they are trying to bring in to limit the pay MPs receive from outside interests - as in, give them an increase in the basic salary and then stop them from earning squillions from consultancy jobs that skew their priorities and make them targets for lobbying. Again, I think this is reasonable and pragmatic. Sure, MP payrises look bad and will get the levellers frothing, especially during austerity, but if it helps reduce the number of MPs lobbying on behalf of their private paid interests then I think it's no bad thing.

Part of me thinks its disgusting when there's so many redundancies, pay freezes, etc.

But part of me thinks to be honest they're not paid brilliantly for the level of work they do. If politics want to attract intelligent people to become MPs then they do need to pay well. Many senior council staff/nhs staff are paid more.

I'm also no supporter of MP's but in fairness, if they were doing the same job in the private sector, they'd be able to earn huge amounts more which perhaps goes to explain why it's normally the "more wealthier/privileged" who end up as MP's?

So more for "all in this together" though - it cannot be proposed that certain aspects and sectors would receive a payrise whilst others in the NHS for example have been stuck with pay freezes since the beginning of the recession!

Whilst I do think that MPs should be paid more in order to reflect the work they do and get rid of the expenses system that is so murky, I would say that this is a total embarrassment for the House of Commons, coming at this moment.

It really is a stupid thing to do in this economic climate. People will be livid.

Didn't the whole expenses debacle come about because years ago Margaret Thatcher didn't want MPs to be seen giving themselves big pay rises when the rest of the country was suffering? Putting things on expenses was a way of quietly making up for not getting higher pay.

If MPs are not sufficiently well paid then only independently wealthy people will be able to go into politics in the future. This point was raised on Question Time a few months ago and David Starkey didn't seem to think it was a problem if only the very rich could afford to be MPs.

Personally, I wouldn't like all our elected representatives to be privileged and rolling in it.

I would rather they were paid more but it had to be their only job. Far too many of them have serious conflicts of interest between their various "employers" and their government roles.

I personally think MPs are underpaid. However, so are a lot of other professions and given the current financial climate it may be better to defer the decision until things improve for everyone.

OTheHuge - I understand what you're saying about salaries, especially since I used to earn more than the proposed figure in a previous life.

But I don't think there is a problem with attracting people to be MPs. It's not high pay that brings them to the job, and neither should it be. The current figure is a perfectly good one. There have been many studies on 'how to attract and motivate high quality people' and they all show that offering more money isn't the best. In fact, one we studied when I was doing my MBA showed that offering more money was actually a disincentive, because it tended to make people more focused on money - and no amount is ever high enough.

MPs do, and should, come from all sorts of backgrounds. It's not a question of trying to attract the City elite with comparable salaries. Some of those City elite will always want to do the job, but it will never be because of the salary.

MPs earn less than police superintendents and army colonels, towards the bottom of the scale for head teachers, less than most senior officers in local authorities, almost half what the leaders of the big trade unions earn and considerably less than the average salary of a lawyer 3 years post qualification working in the south (but outside London).

You may think this is right, or not. But I'm willing to bet that most people's perception is that MPs earn more than many, if not all, these people.

Slightly ironic too that we removed all rights they had to propose their own salaries only to be up in arms when an independent panel proposes an increase.

It should always be more about public service than money, but if the salary is much less than they could earn in other jobs then we shouldn't be surprised if the calibre of people willing to stand (for all parties) falls. Not a popular view I know. And no, I'm not an MP and nor am I related to or married to one!

Tangled I agree that salary shouldn't be the reason that people go in to politics but, once there, they do have to be able to live on what they are earning if they are to do a good job.

I think we have to bite the bullet and pay MPs what the job is worth - it is important work, after all.

We want the most able people to go in to politics not the richest.

They might not earn a huge amount in relation to other senior professions, but they have a hell of a lot of perks, which means their disposable income is a lot better.

I agree with Tarka. MP's pay is very low for the level of responsibility that they take on. This is why so many take second jobs. A hefty payrise and severe restrictions on second jobs sounds like a good option.

At the moment many good people are put off careers in politics because of the salary. I am active in my local party and was asked if I would consider going through the candidate selection process but had to turn it down because, with a young family, I could not afford the paycut plus childcare for longer and less convenient working hours.

Berkshire, I think backbench MPs should earn less than the jobs you mention. Their jobs are important ones, but not more important than many others.

I have realised, since downgrading my own earning capacity considerably, that high-earners have a completely skewed idea of what a 'reasonable' salary is!

MPs pay may well be low compared to erm comparable jobs. I agree actually, it does seem low.

HOWEVER, not long ago the government decided they were going to pay civil servants like myself 'market facing pay' obviously thinking that we were massively overpaid (they'd been reading the fail). Turns out when the report was done we were actually underpaid. Rather than pay us more market facing pay was quietly dropped.

Not entirely sure how this is different.

I know that some of their benefits are being cut but that is happening to us too - as an example if i go for promotion I am going to lose 2 days holiday. We are told we should be lucky to have jobs so maybe someone should say this to the mps?

Any winnable seat will be inundated with excellent applicants to stand as Parliamentary Candidates - many will come from careers which pay them far more money - law, accountancy for example. The argument that we need to pay more to attract intelligent, capable people, is not strong. Backbench MPs have little power and make few, if any, decisions which compare with those made by a head teacher of a large school or high ranking police or army officers.

It also seems strange that they go on about the hours and late nights, yet I believe the Commons only sit late a couple of nights a week and many MPs seem to manage a seat on a board or two as well! They have extremely long holidays to recover from their exertions.

I would be ok with a small pay rise, but getting rid of all of the allowances etc.

It is fairly standard to raise wages when you reduce benefits/perks. Saying "Here's your generous salary; buy your own damn dinner like the rest of the world" seems fair.

A chap on the news this morning was saying we had brought this on ourselves by removing from MPs the right to dictate their own salaries. FWIW I daresay plenty of them will be worse off, which will be part of the reason they're objecting