The Parasites are at it again

[Ryoko]

DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO! the motto of all MPs (MP is an abbreviation of Money Parasite).

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926

Oh my heart bleeds for them god forbid they ever even get the slightest hint of what it's like to be on the receiving end of their thieving policies. Yes claim all the expenses you like on your 63k a year, cushion yourself completely from your own doing with the soft luxuries feel of everyone else's hard earned.

What if they want their families to live with them? What if they don't fancy having their food cooked for them (or aren't going to be around when it's served because they are on committee or at a HoP sitting? Why do they have to share a TV? No one's going to opt for this system scary.

As many have pointed out already, being a MP involves a lot of self-sacrifice in terms of time and family life as it is, why make it worse and detract even more people? Do you really want to end up in a situation where only those with a private income or, more sinisterly, private backers will consider a political life?

the suggestions on this thread are hilarious.

yes, let's move the Houses of Parliament to Norwich and make them all live in a boarding house and eat Pot Noodles.

'What if they want their families to live with them?'

They can weekend and see their families then. Perhaps they'd get through parliamentary business quicker.

'What if they don't fancy having their food cooked for them (or aren't going to be around when it's served because they are on committee or at a HoP sitting?'

Who would want to cook for themselves when a chef could do it for you? (silver service etc). There is no reason why there couldn't be two sittings, as it would be adapted to their work timings.

'Why do they have to share a TV? No one's going to opt for this system scary.'

So why expect other public servants to deal with this then and live like this? Funny, this is exactly the system that HM Forces work to, and they cope. The MPs could have a TV in their room if they wanted, as long as they paid the licence fee.

'As many have pointed out already, being a MP involves a lot of self-sacrifice in terms of time and family life as it is, why make it worse and detract even more people? Do you really want to end up in a situation where only those with a private income or, more sinisterly, private backers will consider a political life?' Bollocks -self sacrifice? Pull the other ones, it has bells on it. They don't get holidays cancelled at the last minute , or put their lives on the line, or do 20 hour days for months at a stretch in revolting and dangerous conditions. Just look at the length of their recesses. Teaching involves self sacrifice in terms of time and family life, as do other public sector careers, but we'd get sacked if we put in a dodgy expense claim without a receipt.

My last MP had one of the lowest expense claims ever. He represented a Cornish constituency and stayed in cheap hotels when in London as he didn't see the need to spend taxpayers money on a home there, and he travelled by train second class. If he could do it, why can't the rest of the buggers?

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I don't want a bunch of monkeys running the country.

They are massively underpaid. Why? because they know that if they paid themselves a decent wage commensurate to the work they do, there would be an outcry. This is exactly why the expenses scandal happened.

If the OP thinks they are being paid huge amounts of money for doing nothing she should get herself elected. All she has to do is persuade a local political party to back her candidacy or stand as a independent then get a majority vote. Then work all the hours God sends only to be slagged off for being parasitic.

These threads and comments like this make me laugh. We trust these people to enact policies and laws that affect everything about our lives from how many schools and hospitals we'll have to what civil liberties we can expect, but we want them to be paid a very basic salary, sacrifice their family lives and independence?

Don't be silly.

If you want people to take on the kind of roles that require a) massive responsbility b) no job security c) public scrutiny on everything from the size of their house to the size of their wife's breasts d) ridiculously long hours, often away from home and e) careful thought and education so that they're making decisions that are not just palatable for the people but that will also work (ie, idiots you think we can just increase taxes for the rich to 75% don't get the job because they'd fail miserably) then I think a decent wage, the ability to enjoy life (when they have time) and the right to actually have a home and a family seems not unreasonable.

Just because you only earn minimum wage, doesn't mean everyone else should. Hell, if everyone earned minimum wage, there'd be much less taxes and benefits, council services, hospitals and schools would disappear pretty rapidly.

I wish people would just look at the bigger picture sometimes.

In a time of plenty, fine, give out expenses.

At a time when child benefit is cut, how can they award themselves 2.5k PER CHILD?
At a time when housing benefit is cut, how can they award themselves 2nd HOME ALLOWANCE?

It's all very well saying that expenses 'enable a greater variety of person' to become an MP. Till the expenses scandal the expenses were MASSIVE. You could get expenses for anything. And look at the cabinet we have. 21 millionaires. The public school takeover. I don't see a whole lot of women with children in there making decisions. And if you look at the 'rich boys' - ie Cameron, Osborne, Clegg etc - they were all claiming tens of thousands of pounds a year.

For those saying they 'work long hours' - yes, that's possibly true. But they have 12 WEEKS HOLIDAY between now and September. That's not per year, that's in the next 6 months. 12 weeks.

The holiday is for parliament not mp's. They will be doing constituency work, though they may take a holiday in that period as well.

And the expenses were effectively in leiu of salary as it was not politically expedient to increase salaries.

This is what pisses me off -

'If you want people to take on the kind of roles that require a) massive responsbility b) no job security c) public scrutiny on everything from the size of their house to the size of their wife's breasts d) ridiculously long hours, often away from home and e) careful thought and education so that they're making decisions that are not just palatable for the people but that will also work (ie, idiots you think we can just increase taxes for the rich to 75% don't get the job because they'd fail miserably) then I think a decent wage, the ability to enjoy life (when they have time) and the right to actually have a home and a family seems not unreasonable.'

So, HM Forces have massive responsibilities (life and death)
Job security? Nope, redundancies
Public scrutiny - yes from MQs to CEA to Rules of Engagement
Ridiculously long hours (par for the course) often away from home (ditto)
careful thought and education (yep, how to keep people safe or at least don't get them killed, avoid dropping bombs on civilians in Libya, safeguarding civvies in Afghanistan, running prisons (coming soon).

'I think a decent wage, the ability to enjoy life (when they have time) and the right to actually have a home and a family seems not unreasonable.'

Decent wage - it's OK. Yes, they enjoy life when they actually get to have one and are not at sea/deployed, and 'the right to actually have a home and family life seems not unreasonable' ha bloody ha - why can't they have a constituency home and weekend? If they want a place in London, then they should pay, and not the taxpayer...or, give them a capped rent allowance for London, but don't pay their mortgages and then let then keep the bloody house as well.

If anyone else in the public sector tried that there would be an outcry. Look at the attempt to smear Sir Richard Dannatt last year with his expense claim for entertaining, and he'd bought all the stuff from supermarkets I think.

The playing field is not level with the MPs and the rest of the public sector, and it should be.

I am not anti a good and decent wage being paid to the armed forces either.

However, at the risk of being flamed by those who clearly take this personally, there are literally thousands and thousands of people in the military. Every one who leaves/dies etc is a tragedy but, without being callous, they don't individually have the same responsibilities as a single MP.

Tell that to Colonel who is commanding a regiment in Afghanistan, or to the Commander of a submarine, who has sole responsibility for the lives/welfare/wellbeing of their men and for the very expensive kit/weaponry they manage.

As to thousands and thousands, so what? I bet there are as many mid ranking to senior NCOs and Officers as MPs who daily shoulder more responsibility than a back bench MP will ever do. MPs are divorced from their constituents and I wouldn't have recognised either my last or my current one if I fell over them.

Scaryteacher.

Are you saying that everybody who isn't military should not be paid more than the military

My DP is paid more than the average squaddie and I'll happily argue with you all day about why I think that's OK.

Agree with Nancy, this thread is hilarious (and naive)

And totally agree with Bonsoir = you pay peanuts and get monkeys. There were be more good politicians if the pay was better.

'Are you saying that everybody who isn't military should not be paid more than the military'

Not at all; I am saying that MPs have taken the piss for years and are about to do so again.

People are saying, oh they need two homes and staff etc etc and travel claims for them and their kids.

My point was that the whole thing could be done far more cheaply if they had their family home in their constituencies and accommodation was provided for them in London, with all the food provided and then they are charged for it . There would be no need for second homes in London and expense claims, and staff could provided from a central pool.

Some on here bang on about the workload of the MPs, well, I think others do as many hours in far less salubrious conditions and that the MPs get a bloody good deal. As it is the age of austerity, and they are expecting everyone to suck up pay cuts, loss of allowances, pay freezes, pension changes and redundancy in some cases, I feel they could at least share some of the pain.

Wow, Bonsoir and I actually agree on something :).

I was under the impression that colonels and commanders were actually rather well paid. Much more so than the rank and file.

I would love to be an MP earning 20k a year would be a dream to me let alone 63k alas such things are not for the likes of little uneducated, working class anarchists such as me, hard work has nothing to do with it, those who work the hardest and the longest hours are often the lowest paid, I know many people who barely get to see there families due to work and stupidly long commutes, yet the MPs think they need special compensation for it, get real.

And this thread has been an eye opener in a way, how many of you people earn 50k+ a year as a couple or individually?, it's amazing how unrepresentative of the real world this place is, the average salary is 31k and number is clearly skewered by the high earners who are also counted meaning the average is probably closer to 25k.

Worth remembering that as soon as you move up the ladder from being a back-bencher, your salary goes up. A cabinet minister earns 130k. Plus the expenses of course.

''If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.''

Oh I am sorry but that is just too much because it invariably only seems to apply to 'worthy' jobs.

It's OK to pay people doing demeaning jobs peanuts because they are not worth more but do a job that apparently is 'due' some social respect and we need to pay the right salary to attract the right person.

Everyone deserves a damn sight more than the minimal wage. The recent thread that £14 000 was actually not a bad income for a single person made me want to throw up.

Oh and yes they work hard and make 'important policy decisions'... like cutting the funding to the local CAB office so it can't open as often when so many ordinary people need them.

I admit to being somewhat naive overall, but boo-fucking-hoo for them. They assume a standard of living that a huge pecentage of them are not worthy of because the phrase 'my right honourable' is generally an oxymoron where politicians are concerned apart from the rare gem.

And I completely agree with those that site the armed forces as working harder, for less, and being equally if not more 'worthy'.
Where does 'if you pay them peanuts, you will get monkeys' stand there?

Sometimes I would really love to see the MP salaries slashed to 20k or whatever, and then see how corrupt and inept great a govt. we'd have, maybe that's all people deserve, though.

Let's go back to the 1700s when MPs had to pay to hold office in Parliament, shall we? Seeing as how that was such a fantastic time for high standards in public life and office.

But when they had the full lavish expenses, we didn't end up with a hugely diverse and respectable parliament. We ended up with MPs who took the piss, and got the taxpayer to pay for duck houses (which he justified by saying people were 'envious' of him, as he had a 'werry werry big house', and he had done nothing wrong), cleaning moats, and enabling MPs to buy and benefit from huge 2nd homes. We didn't have the 'worthy' MPs coming in that you are talking about. And as I said earlier, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne all milked the system as much as any, despite their millions in the bank. Alan Duncan owns 4 houses, and yet said on Have I got News For You that he still thought it was reasonable to claim for a '2nd home' - his words were 'Great system, isn't it'.

I'd like to see someone draw up a table comparing basic MPs remuneration (salary + perks + expenses) against objective measures of "good" governance (looking at corruption, efficiency, accountability, wastage, etc.) on a country by country basis -- the sort of data the OECD should be collecting. The remuneration package needs to be scaled so as to depict MP salary as so many times the median salary in the same country (so then we could reasonably compare France and Bangladesh, for instance).

My guess is that there's some kind of optimal multiplier - but it's not going to be as low as 0.7 or even 2.3 (numbers suggested here as perfectly adequate). Probably more like 3-5.

'I was under the impression that colonels and commanders were actually rather well paid. Much more so than the rank and file.' Define 'well' paid for what they actually do.

I've seen Peter Viggers house (duck house man), it is very nice and very big.