Board logo

Well that's alright innit
02GF74 - 11/7/13 at 11:43 AM

Whilst public sector workers get no pay rise and the rest of the country forced to tighten their belts, MPs vote a pay rise for themselves of 10%. Nice job if you can get it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/mps-nearly-10000-pay-rise

Mr Whippy - 11/7/13 at 11:51 AM

On just £75k a year already, I can see how they struggle...bless them brought tears to my eyes

MakeEverything - 11/7/13 at 11:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
On just £75k a year already, I can see how they struggle...bless them brought tears to my eyes


Its not so much the basic salary, its the benefits that hack me off. They can claim for absolutely everything - Even more before the scandal etc.

nick205 - 11/7/13 at 11:58 AM

I'd rather their salary was set slightly higher and their genuine expenses set within very tight limits.

Doctor Derek Doctors - 11/7/13 at 12:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
Whilst public sector workers get no pay rise and the rest of the country forced to tighten their belts, MPs vote a pay rise for themselves of 10%. Nice job if you can get it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/mps-nearly-10000-pay-rise


I dont want to burst your enraged bubble but MP's dont vote for it anymore since the expenses malarky. An independent body was set-up which MP's have no decicsion in.

Up until recently I thought they got paid a lot more than that, I'm not surprised they claimed all those expenses now.

I wouldn't do an MP's job for £68k, bugger all job security, the media all over your past and family constantly, people always trying to bring you down, having to go to London, dealing with plebs in your constituency, long hours. I earn more doing 39 hours a week in a nice office with colleagues I can have a laugh with while designing stuff.

onenastyviper - 11/7/13 at 12:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205
I'd rather their salary was set slightly higher and their genuine expenses set within very tight limits.


I don't understand this argument.
They are public sector workers - why should they be treated any differently.
"Austerity" should apply to them and that means that they should be cutting back as well - or can they not practice what they preach?

Apparently, they can't afford to live on their £xxk/yr salary + expenses in London.
Well, they should do what the others do and live where they can afford and commute.
They get paid to do a job. If they can't then they should find someone who can, just like the rest of us.

Alternatively, what about the equivalent of student digs for politicians at Westminster?

RK - 11/7/13 at 12:37 PM

The politicians are the same everywhere: "lemme in the trough..."

This is why I always advocate very rich people to stand for office, who will never be tempted by corruption. We cannot pretend that the world is not set up to favour them anyways. We might as well admit it, and carry on.

whitestu - 11/7/13 at 12:47 PM

In my view the pay needs a big increase - 3 or 4 times as much as it is now, whith some very strict rules on expenses and an absolute rule that you cannot work in any other capacity whilst you are an MP plus a complete ban on working with any organisations afterwards where your poisition / influence as an MP could in any way benefit their financial interests.

For a resoponsible job £65k is peanuts. There will be primary school heads in London earning more than that, so no wonder they abuse the expense system.

At a stroke that would get rid of all those in it to line their pockets by using / abusing their position and make it more possibe for ordinary people to consider standing for election.

Stu

nick205 - 11/7/13 at 01:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
I'd rather their salary was set slightly higher and their genuine expenses set within very tight limits.


I don't understand this argument.
They are public sector workers - why should they be treated any differently.
"Austerity" should apply to them and that means that they should be cutting back as well - or can they not practice what they preach?

Apparently, they can't afford to live on their £xxk/yr salary + expenses in London.
Well, they should do what the others do and live where they can afford and commute.
They get paid to do a job. If they can't then they should find someone who can, just like the rest of us.

Alternatively, what about the equivalent of student digs for politicians at Westminster?



IMHO they are not paid that much. Granted it's a salary most people would love to have, but most people couldn't or wouldn't do the job when it came down to it. As above, in relation to other public sector posts, they are not that well paid. Some head teachers are on 6 figures sums.

If the salary was set at a reasonable level, then the expenses could be sharply curtailed, making the whole thing more transparent to the taxpayer. I'd also advocate tax payer funded set price London accommodation for MP's who actually need it +50 mile radius perhaps. Again, this keeps it transparent.

As per Whitestu's comments, there should also be very strict rules on "other" activities, both during MP's time in office. Once their out of office I don't think you can dictate what they do - it's certainly difficult to do so in the private sector.

jossey - 11/7/13 at 01:42 PM

As dr Derek has said they cannot even vote to not get it.

The independent body sets the raise and this is not in control of anyone in the government

Just a quick point the independent body saved 8.5m in the last few years and the 11% will cost us .5 million so not costing us anything if we offset the savings

I'm not an mp or work in government.

David

jeffw - 11/7/13 at 02:00 PM

I was amussed to see two BBC presenters and a journilist talking about this on the Beeb news this morning in mock horrified tones......I would be stunned if the two Beeb people and the journo where not on way more than that.

I think it is resonable for a backbench MP to get the same as a GP....around £150K and much reduced expenses.

blakep82 - 11/7/13 at 04:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Doctor Derek Doctors


I wouldn't do an MP's job for £68k


Exactly what I was about to say.after seeing loads of info today on it, they work 60-70 hours a week, can't please everyone all the time, very stressful job I reckon. I wouldnt fancy it.
As I understand it, the pay rise is to work with a reduced pension and doing away with expenses I understand? So it probably works out about the same

jeffw - 11/7/13 at 04:51 PM

If you paid them a decent salary (in line with senior BBC managers for instance) you would remove the temptation to do 'cash for questions' or fiddle expenses and you might attract some better people from industry to help run the country.

swanny - 11/7/13 at 06:45 PM

I'm afraid I don't buy the idea that if you pay thm enough money they will behave responsibly.
Paying huge salaries to bankers didn't do that, it doesn't seem to work with footballers either!

Human beings will always be motivated by greed whatever you pay them. If you pay them more salary you'd simply have to bung them larger amounts of money to act illegally on your behalf.


The price for abusing authority in public office ought to be draconian, as a decent deterrent.

[Edited on 11/7/13 by swanny]

mookaloid - 11/7/13 at 08:28 PM

There is certainly a school of thought that for instance you want your surgeon doing an operation on you to be so highly paid that he has has the time and training to be very very good at what he does and not rush it..

You could also use similar reasoning that MPs should be highly paid so that they can do an excellent job in running the country for us - unfortunately that's where it all falls down. The real experts who could do a good job of running the country are running large corporations and making their shareholders happy and they wouldn't thank you for (in their terms) a miserly £60 -£70K a year.

So we have a bunch of MPs who in the vast majority are in it for what they can get, not what they can give. There are of course some idealists who think they are fighting a fight against the experts who could run the Country well and represent pressure groups like Unions but they don't care about the Country they only care that the people who finance their campaigns are looked after regardless of how damaging it may be for the country.

They pay lip service to being Patriotic so that they can get elected and re-elected but all they really want is power and their own aims fulfilled. I think there are very few of them that are MPs because they want the Country to be great.

So because MPs are not motivated to make the country great but are motivated by personal gain, power (which is not wisely used when gained), recognition and fame, and don't do what we are paying them for, the press are always on their backs looking for the mistakes and transgressions to bring them down.

So as I am in danger of getting carried away here, I think the system is fatally flawed. If we paid enough to attract really good people to run the country for us, they still wouldn't do it because the press wouldn't leave them alone, they have too much self respect and don't need or want the personal gain, fame and carp that comes with the job.

I don't know what the alternative is but I wish someone would think of it soon

onenastyviper - 12/7/13 at 06:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by mookaloid
There is certainly a school of thought that for instance you want your surgeon doing an operation on you to be so highly paid that he has has the time and training to be very very good at what he does and not rush it..

You could also use similar reasoning that MPs should be highly paid so that they can do an excellent job in running the country for us - unfortunately that's where it all falls down. The real experts who could do a good job of running the country are running large corporations and making their shareholders happy and they wouldn't thank you for (in their terms) a miserly £60 -£70K a year.

So we have a bunch of MPs who in the vast majority are in it for what they can get, not what they can give. There are of course some idealists who think they are fighting a fight against the experts who could run the Country well and represent pressure groups like Unions but they don't care about the Country they only care that the people who finance their campaigns are looked after regardless of how damaging it may be for the country.

They pay lip service to being Patriotic so that they can get elected and re-elected but all they really want is power and their own aims fulfilled. I think there are very few of them that are MPs because they want the Country to be great.

So because MPs are not motivated to make the country great but are motivated by personal gain, power (which is not wisely used when gained), recognition and fame, and don't do what we are paying them for, the press are always on their backs looking for the mistakes and transgressions to bring them down.

So as I am in danger of getting carried away here, I think the system is fatally flawed. If we paid enough to attract really good people to run the country for us, they still wouldn't do it because the press wouldn't leave them alone, they have too much self respect and don't need or want the personal gain, fame and carp that comes with the job.

I don't know what the alternative is but I wish someone would think of it soon


Love it - sums it up perfectly and not just for Government.
You can apply the same logic to businesses etc. People who are best to do the job are often not doing the job because they will reveal the incompetence of those above around or above them.

People know what the answer is (you suggested it in your own post) but it is the one thing that we will never truly obtain - transparency.

Through transparency, people can see what is happening, where money is spent, why things happen and most importantly, ask questions.

Strontium Dog - 12/7/13 at 08:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
On just £75k a year already, I can see how they struggle...bless them brought tears to my eyes


Bloody right! And as to those bleating that the poor lambs don't get enough money, what a crock. If they don't like their (part time for many) working conditions I hear you can get a job in Poundland for £60 a week, perhaps they'd rather do that or work in a real job for minimum wage on a six month contract and NO golden handshake to be seen anywhere.................No, I thought not!