What would you like to see MPs paid, and how reimbursed for their expenses, pension scheme, resettlement expenses?

[lljkk]

Considering their level of expertise, responsibility, accountability and long hours, what would be reasonable: £20k? £30k? as basic with fixed number of aides' salaries covered, and office and travel expenses, maybe?

I agree that pay should be higher (I did at "trouts in the trough" though - I'm guessing autocorrect did that?)

but expenses allowances should be a lot less lavish, & claims should be scrutinised much more closely.

lol not my finest paragraph but you get the gist!

I quite liked 'trouts in the trough'. I had visions of a load of fish all lined up frantically wiggling to get to the front

£60k starting salary for a first time backbencher with a MOD type subsidised housing in London (SSFA) and the same financial support for expenses that military personnel get is perfectly adequate to start with at entry level. The military get tiny pay increases each year and go up a pay band annually too. There is no reason other than greed why this can't be the same for MPs. They could even use the same bloody expensive computer system as the military to save money rather than paying for a new one.

So which public sector workers deserve a pay cut and which ones deserve a pay rise - seeing as everybody has to put up with the rising cost of living: bills, transport, accommodation, etc.

I think they should be paid more considering the responsibility that they have. However, I would also support a cull of their numbers. A reasonably small country such as ours doesn't need 630 odd MP's and a reduction of lobby fodder would reduce the influence of the whips and thus benefit our democracy.

Edwina Curry was v good on BBC news earlier

it's not on for highly-paid (& often independently wealthy) front-benchers to say that back-benchers shouldn't get more

I agree JP. We don't need 630 MP's when a country the size of the US only has around 100 senators.

Not sure about the idea that we need to pay a lot to get intelligent, committed MPs. We are paying quite a bit now and getting people who treat being an MP as a stepping stone to wealth and power in the private sector and many of the plans they come up with seem to be based on something they thought of on the train into work.

As for second homes I have a better idea. Instead of 630 MPs on benches shouting at each other how about making parliament virtual. Video conferencing if you do it right would be in their interest really as no traveling in just for a vote.

It would be much more flexible. An MP could switch from the commons to a committee conference at will and even have both going at once. They could be there while actually traveling abroad.

You'd need to do it right. Secure means to speak or pass documents to any other MP or group of MPs and to their own staff.

Totally and utterly agree with NiceGuy's post.
At the moment we pay a relatively small amount of basic pay and we get a load of idiots, some who have never done a days work in any kind of business or outside of politics and they do not have a clue about the world of business, education etc etc. ALL MPs should have a background
of experience in 1 or more specific sectors so that we can get the right people for the job, and we should pay them a salary commensurate to their experience and on a sliding scale, starying at the minimum of the MP payscale (which IMO should be a lot more than it is now) and rising with results.
They should have 'halls of residence' and food should be provided in these halls so there would be no need to pay for London hotels and personal subsistance whilst away from their normal place of residence. Travel cards should be provided (class of travel depending on seniority/security).
Other expenses should be claimed by proof only, i.e. submitting actual receipts, and should be claimable ONLY in the same way as a business can claim - 'being wholly and necessarily required for the business in question'.

That's just it. The shouting at each other bit is only a fraction of what they do. The bit we see on TV. Most of what they do we don't see.

Working remotely sounds great in theory but in practice it's not a good idea. I've worked from home for several years and I find that so much more can be achieved if you are face to face. Plus factor in the security concerns and government track record on large scale IT projects.

Personally I'd rather have 100 highly paid but well educated, intelligent successful people representing us. It's not just about cost. I'd happily pay more to run parliament if it was more efficient and staffed by cleverer people.

Part of the problem is that many people think that a salary of £60-70k is rich. Unfortunately it's not. You are at best middle class. A GP earns far more. You'd expect a successful company director to earn more too. Top headteachers also earn more I think.

As often said on teacher threads, if it's so much money, such an easy job and easy path to riches, why don't you become an MP?

Personally I cannot think of any other job where you will longer hours, universally hated and damned by the majority no matter what you do.

only a fraction of what they do.

Of course, but none of it is physical work and depends on communication and information exchange. Requiring them to actually be there is like making them travel on horseback.

track record on large scale IT projects.

That did cross my mind. I remembered that in fact our government is so incompetent that they wouldn't be able to make such a change even if they were all behind it 100%.

Not encouraging is it.

I'd rather have 100 highly paid but well educated, intelligent successful people representing us.

Me too, but the most we can realistically expect is well educated people representing themselves and lining up retirement plans.

I think halls of residence sounds practical and sensible etc but would completely put me off ever becoming an MP. It just sounds so grim. Become an MP - live like a student!

What was it they said in The Thick of It? "They want you to work for nothing and to sit on a spike whilst you are doing it"

I actually feel sorry for them being put in this situation, they do know how bad it sounds to the public. They are really in a no win situation with public opinion.

niceguy-

Part of the problem is that many people think that a salary of £60-70k is rich. Unfortunately it's not. You are at best middle class. A GP earns far more. You'd expect a successful company director to earn more too. Top headteachers also earn more I think.

No, that's really not the problem. A salary of 60-70K is in the 90th percentile, as I pointed out earlier.

As often said on teacher threads, if it's so much money, such an easy job and easy path to riches, why don't you become an MP?

Except teachers are paid about 1/3 of that amount, on average, work longer hours, and are usually required to have a good education and a teaching qualification.

Not all teachers are intelligent or well qualified, but on the whole they are probably more intelligent and well-rounded people than MPs.

Look at Ian Duncan Smith. He's an utter waste of a human being. A psychopath, idiot, and serial liar. There are too many idiots in Parliament -- on that note, I agree with you. I don't think they deserve any more money than they already get, especially when many other skilled public sector workers are getting a pay cut.

You might be in the 90th percentile, i'll take your word for that. But it doesn't make you 'rich'. I'd argue to be properly rich you need to be in the top 1%.

My analogy to teachers wasn't to point out their pay. It was because often on teacher bashing threads, everyone also says what a great salary they're on, the massive holidays etc. Then someone will inevitably say "Well if it's such a cushy number, why don't you go be a teacher!?!"

Same here. If being an MP is so easy and you get paid so much money for scratching your arse, why don't you go be an MP instead of just sitting there slagging them off behind your computer screen?

On your last point it is one of those rare occasions where I agree with you. Timing is everything and now is simply the wrong time to be getting a 'payrise' even if it really isn't one in reality. Perception is everything for politician's and right now what the public are hearing is "MP's get 11% rise. You get 0%"

There are also 435 members of Congress in the US. They and Senators are paid $174,000. Representatives also get a Member's Representational Allowance - average $1.4 million.

That's a lot!

£60k + expenses, for a 60+ hour week hmm sounds good when you compare it to what my DH earnt as a junior dr.
Similar wage, no expenses, ridiculous hours (at times I was seriously worried about DH commuting home), abuse from patients, huge amounts of stress, on call rotas over nights, weekends, BHols, having to deal with telling people they or their family aren't gonna make it, having your place of employment shifted around every 6-12mths within a region (the regions btw are huge). No guarantee of a job in your area when you finish your training. MP doesn't sound so bad in comparison.
Why does DH do his job? Because it's something he likes (on good days), feels is morally right and hopes he can help people, it ain't for the money.
I do my piss poorly paid career because I love it (on good days) and I feel I do it well, again not for the money.
Loads of people do professional careers for similar reasons, for not amazing salaries - why do we not look at politics in the same way?
If we did then all MPs need is a decent wage which I believe they already get.

A hall of residence is not a good idea. It could make too tempting a terrorist target.

SSFA is private accommodation rented by the MOD at market rate, the occupant pays a rent on a par with what they pay if they were in military quarters. The MOD pays all bills. MPs would require a1 bed flat within zone 1 or 2.

"why do we not look at politics in the same way?"

We already do. None of today's MPs went into it for the salary, I imagine. I expect, now that he's no longer a junior doctor, your DH earns significantly more than £66k. If he fancied running for office he'd have to think twice about it because he'd be taking a pay-cut. If that applies to a doctor, what chance we get other intelligent professionals taking up the position? The wider the gap gets between MPs' pay and other, comparative roles, the more we're inviting in those with independent wealth, financial sponsors and/or those who see it as an opportunity for backhanders.

No matter what we pay MP's (or any other profession), there will always be someone who will say that's too much money.

I bet if we reduced the salary to £35k, some people would claim it's far too much for MP's and they should do it for minimum wage etc etc.

Bottom line is that you pay what is necessary to attract the people you need. That's why footballers like Rooney get paid obscene amounts of money. Because very few people in the world have that skill.

That's why doctors get paid so much. because few people are intelligent enough or skilled enough to perform surgery on another human being.

And that's why we should pay MP's more. To attract the best and the brightest. Or should we be trying to run the country and compete in the world by paying peanuts to monkeys?

And that's why we should pay MP's more. To attract the best and the brightest. Or should we be trying to run the country and compete in the world by paying peanuts to monkeys?

You mean sort of like how its done in the banking sector?

Bottom line is that you pay what is necessary to attract the people you need. That's why footballers like Rooney get paid obscene amounts of money. Because very few people in the world have that skill.

And that's why talented artists and authors are paid so much, right? Because nobody else has their skills?

We already do. None of today's MPs went into it for the salary, I imagine. I expect, now that he's no longer a junior doctor, your DH earns significantly more than £66k. If he fancied running for office he'd have to think twice about it because he'd be taking a pay-cut. If that applies to a doctor, what chance we get other intelligent professionals taking up the position? The wider the gap gets between MPs' pay and other, comparative roles, the more we're inviting in those with independent wealth, financial sponsors and/or those who see it as an opportunity for backhanders.

I'm still trying to understand the rationalisation which is going on here. MPs are paid in the top 90%'ile of wages, and some right-wingers are arguing that it's not enough, and that it means only the independently wealthy will be able to afford such a wage.

So what does this imply for the remaining 90% of the population? Their wages are not enough to live on?

90th percentile means that 10% of working population earn a salary in excess of an MP. That's about 3 million talented, capable, intelligent, 'ordinary' working people with real lives and real world experience ... the sort we all say we want running the country... but who will be put off because they don't want to take a pay-cut. Means the only ones that are going to put their name forward are either career politicians with no other experience, those on low salaries and resorting to bribes or sponsors... like the Labour MPs bankrolled by Coop Bank... or those with enough independent wealth that they can maintain their standard of living.