"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?

i think its ironic that the people who are most against the current status quo and want to flog mps the most can't see that it actually perfectly suits people like cameron, miliband, clegg etc.

they can continue to be mediocre because the actual competition of smart and effective people need to make a living and they don't. and it's going to get worse

it's a very shortsighted way of thinking just to feel like you've brought someone you don't like down a peg or two when actually it suits them fine

Personally, I would want an MP to be earning more than that! Yes, you could live on less, but I want someone representing me that is intelligent, educated, and has the skills needed to carry out the role well. Any person that could do this well could do many other jobs well too. The incentives for MPs have to compete with other sectors in order to attract the best people.

Well thats sounds like a normal sensible way to loking at spending money Boffin

I would be in favor of a much higher basic wage and no extras. Easier to monitor and control and then we probably save a decent amount of tax payers ££ not having to audit all those expenses claims etc.

Unless you are independently wealthy or very altruistic or simply power hungry.......if you have a number of options out there so why become an MP?

We can all bleat on about public duty etc but if we were faced with the choice ourselves, I wonder how many of us would pick the nice pay check over public service.

I think people trying to work on trains SHOULD get 1st class travel tbh. All sorts of other professions fund it for their executives.
I don't think that MPS should have to live in poverty to make some kind of point of ' knowing what its like' to be poor. That is the politics of envy

Kelly, not just the current bunch. All of them are self serving fuckers and always will be.

Paying more will not encourage better candidates. Its not the sort of job where it matters. If it was a business I would agree with you completely. The house of commons isn't.
How would a ultra successful business person make a better MP than someone who's been a cleaner for the last 20 years?

Decisions are made in line with party policy, not in the best interests of the country. Why would we need skilled business people on high wages to do that job?

i would say a manager has a better idea of finances, of negotiating at a high level, of literacy and of oratory.
Not always. Just mostly!

here is a good article on this subject:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11429409/Want-to-kill-cash-for-access-Simple-whack-up-MPs-pay-to-150000.html

"We create an environment where MPs are terrified of being seen to have their snouts in the trough. So they refuse to award themselves a pay rise, and instead try various tricks, flicks and clever accountancy ruses to supplement their income. Then when we in the media uncover and expose those ruses, the public cry: “look, we knew it! Snouts in the trough again!”...MPs do one of the most important jobs in our society. “What about the nurses?!” MPs decide whether or not we have nurses. How many we have. What we pay them. How we train them. Where they work. How they work. Life. Death. War. Peace. MPs take decisions that affect every single one of us, every second of every day, from the moment we are conceived till the moment we die. Forget the vacuous argument we need “more ordinary people in politics”. What we need are more extraordinary people in politics."

Undecided, the cost of living is so high because of terrible planning over the past 40 years and a lack of commitment to certain kinds of diversity in the capital. We have practically drained middle class people from it and filled it with those on benefits and the international super rich. Every other commercial unit seems to be an overpriced coffee shop or a designer boutique due to high commercial rent and business rates. We build swathes of investment flats that remain empty or which are let on short-term tenancies at the expense of family homes. We build on school playgrounds and parks making some areas claustrophobic. We hand over charitable housing aimed at working people to investment firms who asset strip it for their own gain. I could go on ...

BoffinMum

I work in the public sector. Our rules are in line with what you say for hotels and evening meals but we are not allowed to claim for alcohol or use first class travel under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter if First Class works out better value because it offers parking or free food, it is Not Allowed.

That's a sad view of democracy GeorgePig. Who do you think makes party policy?

Private members bills have in their time fundamentally changed this country - eg the 1967 Abortion Act. There is more to being an MP than voting for your party.

As for qualifications, I do think we need to have MPs who are clever. Not necessarily 1st class degree from Oxbridge but who are intelligent (can have run successful business, headed up school or police force etc). I don't want an MP who is a "man or woman of the people" but really isn't that bright. The decisions they make are complex and an MP should be able to read and digest difficult policy docs on a wide range of issues. I agree with Kelly we want extraordinary people, but at the very least surely we want bright people?!

Actually I think MPs should know what it's like to be poor, but that does not mean they have to live through it. It means they should engage with their constituencies properly and make it their business to look at uncomfortable things from time to time, so they are well-informed.

Littlebearpad, who do you think makes party policy?

The highest bidder. It really is that simple. Or however they (MPs) can make the most money. You don't honestly think its fir the good of the country and its people do you?

Yes, it was like that in my last job Ilkley and we had one memorable day when some of us were expected to sign off some very high standard class train fares where the first class one was significantly cheaper due to a freak ticketing price blip (think £60ish standard class as opposed to £10.40 first class), and we just hated doing that. It just felt all wrong.

As Tony Benn said, a good socialist would want everyone to travel first class and as far as I am concerned if my team can shop around to save us money whilst being more comfortable and getting free cuppas to boot, I am all for that.

I was just thinking out loud when I wondered about the idea of limiting to two terms and yes, I hadn't thought in terms of losing the most experienced people all the time. Obviously not a good idea. I was just pondering it as a way to offset the 'I could earn a lot more elsewhere' thing, because it would be for a finite period. But yes, clearly I hadn't thought it through!

it certainly will be like that george if you throw up your hands and say there's nothing we can do about it!

The other anomaly is flights vs train fares. On some expenses policies that pre-date no frills flight costs, there is an implicit assumption that it is cheaper to go by train for domestic travel, whereas this can cost, say, £300 and eight hours of travel resulting in a need for an overnight stay as well, as opposed to £60 and four hours, allowing an extra half a day's work and for the person to get there and back in a day as well.

It is like that AND there I nothing we can do about it Kelly
"if voting changed anything they wouldn't let us do it" or something to that effect. I don't know where the quote is from but its definitely true

What is this sting actually about? Is it taking cash to give companies access so they can have influence on policy making?

Rifkind didn't say MPs couldn't live on £60k

He said: “If you’re trying to attract people of a business or a professional background to serve in the House of Commons, and if they’re not ministers, it is quite unrealistic to believe they will go through their Parliamentary career being able to simply accept a salary of £60,000.

“That sounds a lot to a lot of people earning less than that but the vast majority of people of a business or professional background earn far, far more than that.

“If they’re told they have to choose one or the other they won't come to the House of Commons at all and Parliament will lose their skills.”

He is completely right.

Read the facts properly.

He is right about that. The surrounding context is pretty awful though. Touting himself for hire saying he is self-employed with no salary.

There is a real problem with MPs' income, but none of that saves Rifkind.
He comes out of this very badly. I'm sad as he was always one of my favourite Tories. I thought he was pretty decent.

First class is just a bigger seat for fat bottoms and a place where you are more likely to be over heard and breach confidentiality than with the plebs in second class actually. No one with confidence information should ever work on trains. Lawyers don't.

Haha yeah I saw this. First I thought, well he's not going to win any hearts and minds over with this in his time of need. But actually isn't he MP Kensington and Chelsea? I expect his constituents are nodding sympathetically.