"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?

Yup, he will not lose any votes locally, in fact his constituents will probably start a collection for him, they'll be appalled at his poverty.

I think it's his choice of words more than what he says. Of course someone is able to live on an income of 60k, otherwise most of the population would be unable to exist.

Being willing to, if there is potential to earn more elsewhere, is a different statement.

Current MPs' pay:
The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is £67,060. MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

If he and Jack Straw have so much time to spare, I wonder if they are really following up on constituents' problems, reading up on proposed legislation; promoting businesses in their own constituencies rather than Chinese ones etc.

If they could earn so much that means they were earning so much. So why don't they have investments that would make up the difference when they decide to leave work and go be an MP? Were they living off all their earnings at the time, and have nothing to show for it? Doesnt say much for their business and money skills if that is the case.

The thing is, they dont want to live off £60,000 plus expenses plus their investments and plus their inherited assets. Like anyone, they want to hold on to as much of what they have as they can, and and earn more as easily and quickly as possible. Someone decided consulting is how to go, but in truth consulting is a thin veneer of respectability for what in less sophisticated countries is easily recognised as a bribe. They haven't any idea that anyone would consider it a conflict of interest or immoral, or that they are working for themselves while on the clock we pay. Because their only interest is making more money, and arranging rules, regulations and taxes to maximise their and their businessman peers opportunity to do so. And screw the rest of us, and screw the parts of government that support and assist anyone but themselves. At best they don't care, at worst they actively want to get rid of those departments as unprofitable.

An MP's salary is enough to live comfortably on.

If people aren't motivated by the idea of public service they shouldn't be in public office.

"it's a shitty life with horrible hours"

No more so than being a teacher or a hospital doctor.

I think the point is that M.R (like many mp's) comes from a hugely entitled class. This group of people feel it's their birthright to be extremely comfortably off, and that anything less is entirely unacceptable.

It says here about a programme that is on tonight

"Mr Straw is reported to have described how he operated "under the radar" to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. He was also said to have claimed to have used "charm and menace" to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm."

Why do MPs have to keep travelling to Westminster anyway? Lots of professions manage teleconferencing with no problems, and the Houses of Parliament are already set up for broadcast, it wouldn't take much extra infrastructure to set up teleconference facilities and save a lot of MPs a lot of travel time.
Improving the working conditions of MPs would widen access, attracting more candidates (particularly women with families) who could not consider the role as it stands.

Perhaps with higher salaries they wouldnt have got into such a mess with expenses. Plus we might get better MPs.
Their salaries are more than adequate, the expenses were more about greed than anything else. Regarding getting better MPs if they were paid more, they used to say that to justify the big fat cats huge wages and inflation busting bonus's, all it does is show that you don't have to pay top money to get the best because they still used to fail. Shame they don't use that logic to apply to the people on nat min wage or zero contracts. What gets me about MPs though is that their very generous expenses covers a hell of a lot of their cost of living, unlike the rest of the population they don't have to rely on them completely for day to day living.

Have any of you had much to do with MPs? There are some intelligent and capable ones, but some would struggle to get a job at the average wage of £25k. So I will never accept the argument that they can earn more elsewhere.

I agree lucy the ones I have met have not been that smart or engaging. 60k is enough I would like to see some sort of basic accommodation nr westminster if they have a family home elsewhere this 2nd home malarkey is a joke.

If being an MP is so awful and the salary so poor, it's strange that any safe or remotely winnable seat will be beating candidates (and many of them excellent people with good careers) off with a stick.

Maybe their spouse needs to go out to work then, if the family as a whole cant live on ONE salary, then??

We got told by GO that families on between 50 and 60k are rich and deserving of having their CB cut.

Funny how pensioners and Tories aren't deemed rich if on that salary.

I would love to be an MP but would do so as my last professional post before retirement. IMO the salary is there to give you enough to cover your expenses. I don't think the system should be set up for people making a career out of it. If that is what MPs are looking for they have the wrong job.

FWIW I don't think GBP60k is a lot but I don't think MPs should be paid more. If I were to run as a MP it would be a way for me to give back and that GBP60k would cover any income I would have forfeited from directorships etc during that time.

I think they should be paid a lot more to avoid Westminster becoming the exclusive preserve of those with family money and/or a very high-earning partner to support them. MPs do work phenomenally long hours, have a lot of responsibilities and, those with constituencies beyond a commutable distance from London, don't get to see much of their families. OK, they earn more than many but, since a lot of them come from the law, business, media, senior trade union positions, occasionally medicine, they could expect to earn a lot more elsewhere.

I completely understand that the public aren't keen on the political system but the few backbench, constituency MPs I have come across have worked really hard and cared very much. Imo, the greasy career-politicians that we all despise are partly the result of not paying "ordinary" MPs more and allowing policy wonks and those who feel that they are entitled to rule to run the place.

What responsibilities Lala? What more than any other public servant?

I don't think £60k is a particularly high salary. Remember too that there's no scope for incremental increases, the salary currently starts and ends at that level. Yes some hospital doctors are on less but consultants certainly aren't, they start at about £80k+ and go well into 6 figures. Managers of Tesco are not just on £53k, those who manage the larger stores are on far more and the scope is there to move into senior and better paid roles. MP hours are long and any social, they are often away which I imagine makes it hard to have 2 careers without significant childcare costs. £60k just isn't a high professional salary not even in a mid sized charity where £60k is at the lower end, appreciate small charities pay far less. We would struggle on £60k in London, sorry it it would be very tight and far too much of a lifestyle change to consider.

I agree its a post career vocation really to avoid the out of touch element we see so much

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

Wages were brought in to stop it being the preserve of the independently wealthy who didn't need a salary. People like Cameron and Osborne.

I don't object to MPs being paid a decent salary. If they do it properly, it involves working long and often anti-social hours, and MPs are often people who could earn more in another profession (such as law). They are also vulnerable - every general election they could lose their job.

But what I really do object to is those MPs who then have the nerve to impose the bedroom tax or make the benefits of disabled people or say "It's possible to live on £100 a week", and then if anybody ever goes on strike to push up their paltry fucking wage start talking about the "politics of envy".

That really does piss me off.

twitter is quoting Rifkind as saying he has lots of time for reading and going on walks.

You need to look at what under the radar means. His point was when you lobby on EU legislation if you do it in public you do less well at it. I make that point all the time in things like litigation - it is a very valuable insight, not some dirty illegal proposal and it is a pity two very committed public service type MPs have been caught in this sting. There are a good few more corrupt MPs around and these two are two of those who have really given a lot of time to public service when they could have been out there making a lot of money in the time they devoted to the country which simply confirms my view - you have to be a bit of a glutton for punishment to be an MP.

[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11079715/The-man-determined-to-give-MPs-a-pay-rise-whatever-No10-says.html looks like they might get a 9% increase]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11079715/The-man-determined-to-give-MPs-a-pay-rise-whatever-No10-says.html

"and MPs are often people who could earn more in another profession (such as law)"

Most teachers, scientists and hospital doctors could earn more by becoming lawyers or bankers or accountants, but they have a vocation to teach, to discover and to heal.

Politicians with no vocation for politics and public service should fuck off to the city to make money, if that's what floats their boat.