mps want to get a salary increase to 100k

[zippitippitoes]

..quite shocked to see that on average they calim allowances of 130k

in order to avoid bad publicity labour mps have been advised to write individually to demand the increase rather than collectively!

are they worth it here

does paying them more make us likely to have better or worse ones?

They are greedy b'stards.
I am friends with one and he say so.

(He isn't though.)

I think they should survive on charitable donations from their constituents

well they work very hard
maybe paying them more would attract more people with half a brain (just half would do)
general standard of mps very very low - people with huge amounts of self belief and not much in the way of ability

I know probably 7 or 8 people on the conservative a list - people I knew peripherally in my young single life 10/15 years ago......
shudder. all VERY confident and QUITE thick

Maybe if MP's have a huge salary increase they might pay more towards their gold-plated pensions.

Maybe if MP's have a huge salary increase they might pay more towards their gold-plated pensions.

I feel that the gap between pay rises at the top and pay rises at the bottom has gone far enough. Someone on 15k may have had small increases for years, meanwhile people in top paying jobs have seen massive increases. MPs clearly see themselves in the latter category, but why should they warrant such huge increases, when many of their constituents are tied to "RPI".

Plus, they are the ones who have awarded such large pay increases to GPs etc, inflating the pay of high earners so much. They only have themselves to blame if they have fallen behind.

it's a cunning plot they move others salaries forward and then they can say they have to play catch up

ah now I agree suedonim, their pensions are a SCANDAL.

I would be very happy for them to have good pay rises if they were given the same bloody pension deal as the rest of the public sector workers....

But what does the average backbencher do that would warrant such a high salary? The ministers etc are on more money - fair enough as they have more responsibility. But the backbenchers may serve on one or two committees and then raise issues pertinent to their constituents. And of course vote from time to time, but with many of the votes having been pre-determined by the whip.

On the other hand I would be happy to see them role up their salary and all their other expenses/allowances into one overall limit. There seems to have been a higher than average number of spouses employed as office managers for MPs.

I think there "expenses" are a con

their their their

ohh i'll become an Mp....I am thick so I'll be good.

Exactly LadyMuck. If I thought for one minute that they were just earning that much I might be more sympathetic. But I have done some work on the register of MPs interests and they are mostly very rich. The allowances for expenses, travel and housing are really taken advantage of.

A GP earns his salary as a self employed contractor, and he has to pay for his buildings etc out of that. An MP is on a minimum of about 200k when all of that is taken into account, not to mention the non-contributory pension.

We used to get the best one when the salary was bad so only those who were professionally successful or had private means or a rich spouse could do it so I'm not sure higher salaries leads you to getting the best people.

I think MEPS can get an even better financial deal so if you're considering either perhaps go for that.

The basic salary is quite low, however the expenses are generous - £20K pa for housing interest etc. The biggest gravy train is the European Parliament, imho.

Not sure that £60k can be seen as quite low tbh!

I'd like a salary increase to 100k as well.
We don't always get what we want.

Funny how MPs think they deserve big pay rises but the government is always calling for public and private sector workers to show restraint. Well, they can show some too! The gap between the people at the top and the bottom is growing all the time. If MPs want to represent us, they can't be too divorced from our concerns. Smacks of the sort of companies where the fat cats on the board award themselves double figure pay rises while offering the staff two or three per cent.

I think they should be truly representative of their constituents by earning the average wage.

Oh all right then, I'll settle for the mean.

I see absolutely no correlation between high wage and ability to do the job. On the contrary, the higher the wage, the more cynical career politicians like Blair and Cameron it will attract. The lower the wage, the more idealistic people who actually believe in democracy will go into it, imo.

And the lower their wage at the average / mean level, the more of an incentive they would have for ensuring that the rest of plebs (their supposed bosses) have enough money to live on.

Yes. I don't like the fact public sector pensions are being protected whilst private sector pensions aren't plus the private sector is paying for those preserved public sector pensions. We lose out twice.

yup, I can see the argument that MPs should be on average wage.

But then you WILL get more people of independent means and arguably not in touch with "normal" people

mind you it is still probably better than career politicians who have never held down a job in their life that isn't at party office or somewhere.

there is an argument for saying that the old way of people making their money/carrying out their business careers and then being MPs later on in life when they could afford to do it, was better.

not a popular argument in the labour party though

Pigs at the trough.

And they will get it.

They are the only ones who don't have to worry financially, especially about pensions etc.