"MPs can't live on £60K a year" says Sir Malcolm Rifkind

[CFSKate]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11429070/MPs-cant-live-on-60k-a-year-says-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind.html

Is he being unreasonable?

Of course he is. What he means is MPs don't want to live on £60.000 a year and it won't fund their current lifestyle.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

just shows how out of touch MP's are if they feel they can say it and the general public wont be riled by it

yes they don't want to.
we have a home, a car, two children etc an our income is much less than 60k

selfish bastards have no idea how most people live.

I think saying they can't live on £60k is ridiculous, of course they could if they had to or wanted to.

But, the kind of skills that make someone a good MP and being able to build the profile that gets them elected in the first place would mean they could easily earn more elsewhere.

It depends what sort of quality you want from your MPs, I suppose.

In theory, I would support legislation meaning MPs were unable to have other business interests because of the conflict of interest. However, how could you ever make that work in practise? Are they not to be allowed investments of any sort?

I do think that if they have so much time on their hands they can manage all these other interests, perhaps we need fewer of them!

God, I'd love to know then why he thinks it's ok to expect people to live off a min wage zero hour contract job.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been suspended from the Conservative Party in Parliament after being secretly filmed apparently offering his services to a private company for cash.

Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.

The MP for Kensington and chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee was recorded saying: "I am self-employed - so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income."

But, the kind of skills that make someone a good MP and being able to build the profile that gets them elected in the first place would mean they could easily earn more elsewhere.

The voluntary sector (and other professions) are full of people who have the skills and get-go to make a ton more money in the private sector, if they went into "business". They've made a choice to have a less well-paid career helping people. I can't imagine the directors of most charities treat it as a part-time job and "consult" elsewhere for big bucks on that basis.

If we made MPs treat being an MP as a full time job, we'd still have a decent pool of candidates to pick through. Possibly a better pool, as those would be prepared to put their all into it.

I've just heard his actual words and they're worse - he actual said the vast majority of people who work in business earn more than 60 grand.

They don't, that's utter shash. Just completely untrue.

It isn't actually that much versus many other London based professional salaries. The problem is that they can't be seen to vote for a payrise as it would be very politically unpopular.

Perhaps with higher salaries they wouldnt have got into such a mess with expenses.

Plus we might actually get better MPs, it's a shitty life with horrible hours, completely non-family friendly - the Lib Dem MP shoving her crying 3 year old at a random researcher for a late night vote on last week's Commons programme was evidence of that - it isn't worth most people doing it for £60k a year.

The MP for Kensington and chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee was recorded saying: "I am self-employed - so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income."

What do his voters think about that ?

I heard him on the radio saying 'of course that seems a lot of money to people who are used to earning less than that...' in a kind of 'you've no idea how hard it is for us' way.

My mind was a bit boggled. If you want to earn loads more money than an MP does, then don't become an MP surely? Or alternatively, if you want to become an MP then become an MP with an MPs salary. It is the argument trotted out time and again by the government to the likes of teachers, nurses and civil servants. But he thinks it is different for his class of people?

How many hours do they do?

Say 40hrs a week, I think a fair wage would be the living wage - about £7.75ph I think? So just shy of £16.5k a year plus train fare for the trips to London and overnight hotel if strictly necessary.

imo it's a job that should be done for the love of it not the high wages

Perhaps with higher salaries they wouldnt have got into such a mess with expenses.

I doubt it - greedy is as greedy does. Don't forget, they are entitled to that money.

Really.

In their own heads that is. Only remember, what's in an MPs head can become law.

People working in the professions and heading the kinds of businesses he's talking about do earn more than £60k+ by the time they reach his stage of their careers, surely Laurie?

Someone with MR's CV could easily earn it anyway.

There are mumsnetters who would argue that 60k is a pittance and they couldn't live on such a paltry income. I've seen this total lack of self awareness and inability to engage with the idea that you can exist in places other than London on salaries other than six figured

Charity chief execs aren't as badly paid as you'd suggest Archery.

An article in the Indie in 2009 said Research seen by The Independent shows that more than 50 charity chief executives received between £100,000 and £210,000 last year. In one case, a charity paid its chief executive nearly £400,000.

It's basically another flaw with democracy (I know, there's no better alternative). The kinds of people who want the power are the very last ones who should have it. People who choose the voluntary sector are an entirely different bread Annie.

Whilst I think they can live on it, I still say you couldn't pay me enough to be an MP. If I was going into that kind of thing I'd want far more than £60k.

as far as I know there are only around 5% of the UK working population earning over 50k, so he's not even right when he is implying that MPs are surrounded by people all earning more than them.

Yes and Little Bear is right of course. £60k for someone heading a decent sized charity, woudln't be a competitive salary at all.

Yes he is being unreasonable to say MP's couldn't live on 60K but not for them to want more than that to live on if they have the time and earning potential.

You would expect someone with the skills to be able to be an MP to have higher earning potential than 60K particularly in the London area and by if you were to restrict their ability to increase their income, you might find a number of them choose not to be an MP after all.

To many of us 60K seems a huge figure, me included as our household income is less than 20K but in London, after tax and with mortgages, living, childcare and transport costs being higher well, not so much.

Not sure if they already do or not but it would seem fairer to pay more to those MPs who hold government jobs and less to those who don't and as such have more free time to earn outside the role of government.

He probably is treaclesoda, as most MPs come from privileged backgrounds and their work life tends to only bring them into contact with business leaders, top professionals and old school pals.

You would expect someone with the skills to be able to be an MP

What skills are those out of interest ? Can anyone post the qualifications needed ?

I apologise, I had misunderstood the figures I read. I think it is broadly true for salaried employees, but doesn't include the actual owners of businesses, which would make a big difference to the statistics.

If you pay MPs 60k a year all you end up with are the independently wealthy who don't really represent anybody but a small section of society.