Furious that MP's are to get an 11% pay rise!

(270 Posts)
Millenniumbug1 Sun 08-Dec-13 08:42:24

Why? When the rest of the country is wondering how we're going to pay our heating bills, we had 30,000 deaths due to the cold last year, (many more than Switzerland), but the MPs award themselves this pay rise.
I always feel indebted to vote, but I wish we could have a box on the ballot paper which says that we don't like any of them! I just don't think they've earned an 11% pay rise.

PigletJohn Thu 12-Dec-13 20:57:23

I'm getting into the Tumbril business.

SteamWisher Thu 12-Dec-13 20:25:36

Sorry but you have to be pretty dense to think that it's a good idea to think about doing this now. And if it wont cost the taxpayer a penny, that implies that overall MPs can get the same? Otherwise we'd hear about the savings.

Yes MPs pay needs sorting but not right now. It's a PR disaster and the timing - 2015?! Are IPSA stupid? People have little faith in politicians as it is. Do they want people to vote at the next election or not?

PigletJohn Thu 12-Dec-13 15:15:59

"IPSA say that overall this will not cost the taxpayer a penny more"

If that is true, how much have they been pocketing in expenses and allowances that no ordinary working person would expect to receive, and would pay tax on if they did?

prh47bridge Thu 12-Dec-13 13:43:58

So we ALREADY have a system where not everyone can afford to enter politics

True (although your deposit will be paid by your party if you stand for one of the major parties) but I don't see that as an argument for restricting even further the pool of people who can afford to enter politics.

It is that others of us working in the public sector have seen cuts and not rises in our income

A significant part of this seems to be rolling into salary things that were previously claimed as expenses. Another element is increasing salary to compensate for reduced benefits. IPSA say that overall this will not cost the taxpayer a penny more. If true that suggests the average MP won't see much of an increase when everything is taken into account.

It's not the level of pay that I have a problem with, or even the fact that maybe they "deserve" an increase. It is that others of us working in the public sector have seen cuts and not rises in our income.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 21:08:32

Ok, that's not so bad.

diddlediddledumpling Tue 10-Dec-13 21:07:13

After 2015, it goes down to 17% of salary, so more like a redundancy payment.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 21:05:59

It is preposterous!

If it were easier, I'd stand for mp just for the perks wink

diddlediddledumpling Tue 10-Dec-13 20:59:27

Steamwisher I think IPSA has said that resettlement payment is too high and it will be reduced in 2015, same time as the pay rise. Can't remember to what level, will loom it up.
I hadn't been aware of it before, it's preposterous.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 19:49:07

And KidLorne MPs get another years salary if they're not re-elected. Hardly "insecure".

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 19:47:50

Exactly Binky

So let's not pretend that there's a queue of highly qualified people who couldn't possibly demean themselves by only earning 65k a year and are therefore put off.

Thank you merci! (odd saying thank you twice!)

Binkybix Tue 10-Dec-13 15:25:00

To be honest I think an important barrier is the fact that an independent stands nearly 0% chance of winning, so you have to get really involved with one party, aligning yourself to the majority of its policies and working up through the ranks. People who want to just get on with supporting the local community without getting caught up in party politics are put off by that I think. They're probably exactly the sort of people you'd actually want representing you.

Darkesteyes Tue 10-Dec-13 14:39:23

KidLorneRollTue 10-Dec-13 11:28:54

It's all very well saying that many MP's are independently wealthy, but many are not and we don't want a system where only people who can afford to be MP's are able to be so.


RUBBISH If someone on Jobseekers or minimum wage wants to run for MP or council they wouldnt be able to afford the upfront fees.
So we ALREADY have a system where not everyone can afford to enter politics.

Darkesteyes Tue 10-Dec-13 14:35:35

life and work, give everything they can, work for constituents and charities and have no extra income who have reviewed letters saying they are greedy bitches who deserve sexual attacks.

Netguru thats vitriolic mysogyny coming into play there. Rather than anything to do with money

mercibucket Tue 10-Dec-13 12:41:37

oops
100 percent!

mercibucket Tue 10-Dec-13 12:41:17

agree 00 percent steamwisher

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:41:17

I will add I think the current salary is fine!

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:39:01

I also think we need a reminder as to what an MP does.

They are servants of the people, serving in Parliament to represent their constituents. As individuals they have little power, only influence.

Comparing them to GPs, head teachers and other professionals is demeaning to those professionals who actually have to have qualifications behind them to do those jobs. They also have considerable power eg over an individual's health, education etc etc. the most an MP can do is lobby and write a few letters, head up campaigns.
This is why MPs get more if they take on responsibility eg committee work, cabinet jobs etc.

Fundamentally we live in a democracy and it's for the voter to decide who they want as MP. This means that trying to tweak salaries to "get the best" is wrong - if voters want noddy, then so be it.

The salary is to ensure that they can afford to do the job not live the life of Riley.

And finally the actual increase is disgraceful given our current climate, or so where told.

How much is IPSA planning to reduce the allowances system by?

KidLorneRoll Tue 10-Dec-13 11:28:54

It's all very well saying that many MP's are independently wealthy, but many are not and we don't want a system where only people who can afford to be MP's are able to be so. It should be open to all. Offering 20k a year is not going encourage good people to seek election.

My local MP works damn hard and is by no means well off, and every 4-5 years she stands to lose it regardless of how well she does it. 65k is not a massive amount of money based on the amount of work she does and the relative insecurity of the position.

Perhaps the increase is excessive, but the salary itself is - for most of them - deserved. If you don't think it is, use your vote or run for election yourself.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 11:28:09

65k isn't a low salary. It's in the top ten percent.

prh47bridge Tue 10-Dec-13 10:22:05

Tell me bobby can these other professions claim the level of expenses that MPs can

Remember that MPs have to claim on expenses things that in most other jobs wouldn't be handled this way, e.g. office equipment, stationery, postage and staff costs. According to IPSA the additional changes they are making will bring MPs expenses in line with typical professionals.

prh47bridge Tue 10-Dec-13 10:13:56

Yes MPs' pay hasn't risen much but their allowances most certainly have to compensate

That was indeed what happened in the past. MPs were told they couldn't have a proper pay rise but their expenses would be increased as a back door way of giving them a rise. Then the public became outraged at expenses and changes were brought in to limit the amounts they can claim. The proposed changes introduce further limits. For example, MPs will no longer be entitled to claim for an evening meal when a sitting lasts beyond 7:30pm. According to IPSA this will bring MPs into line with what a typical professional would expect to receive in expenses. Whilst I don't know whether that will be the result of these changes I think that is the right goal.

They accrue 1/40th of their salary every year

If the IPSA sticks to its original proposals that will be reduced to 1/51st per year and contributions will be increased. Whilst this is a better deal than you tell us you are getting it is, according to the Hutton report, on a par with other public sector pensions. Of course, within the public sector some do better than others. And it is still generally the case that public sector pensions are better than those on offer in the private sector.

it's a part time job

It is true that we allow MPs to take on additional jobs but the most recent independent research available suggests that the average MP works 70 hours per week on parliamentary and constituency issues, which doesn't sound very part time to me. There are, of course, some who are much harder working than others. One of the problems I see in our system is that it is almost impossible to remove a lazy MP if they manage to get elected in a safe seat.

And on a point raised by a number of posters, paying a high salary doesn't guarantee that you will get the best people but paying a low salary pretty much guarantees that you won't.

SteamWisher Tue 10-Dec-13 09:55:59

Tell me bobby can these other professions claim the level of expenses that MPs can?

bobbywash Tue 10-Dec-13 09:33:19

It's easily searchable (made up word sorry) but at last count there were over 2500 local authority employees on over 100K per annum

Also over 700 gp's earned over £200K, now I know we are not comparing, but there are only 650 odd MP's.

800 Headteachers over £100,00 and what are the teaching staff getting by comparison. That's about a quarter of all STATE school heads earning over 6 figures

Don't pick on MP's for their salary, moan about the percentage increase yes, but not the value.

And fwiw Gps do a lot of hard work to get where they are, hardly a comparision is it!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now