£60,000 a year isnt enough to live on

#1
Just in case you didn't guess who said this:
GREEDY MPs want a massive £12,000 rise — on top of their £60,000 pay and huge expenses.
And long-serving backbenchers — who often occupy safe seats but achieve very little — want even MORE to reward their time-serving.
Jack Straw, leader of the Commons, yesterday said the claims will be part of a salary review.
He announced MPs would get a two per cent rise in the next year, but that merely led to the new demands.
Tory MP Sir Nicholas Winterton told Mr Straw that MPs’ pay is 20 per cent behind jobs used for official comparison.
He said: “Will that encourage good, competent, able, intelligent people to put their name forward to come to be members of this House?”
A 20 per cent rise would mean an extra £12,000 in basic pay.
Last year in total the 659 MPs claimed a staggering £80 million.
Former independent MP Martin Bell said: “There won’t be much sympathy for this claim.”
link

At least Andrew Gimson in the Telegraph feels sorry for them :D
To witness such poverty in the midst of plenty is unbearable. Yesterday we found ourselves gazing in disbelief at the sort of concentrated deprivation that we never dreamt could exist in an affluent western country at the beginning of the 21st century.
link

The poor things are finding ways to cope though:
Politicians are increasingly getting free upgrades on flights, it emerged yesterday.
Growing numbers of MPs regard the upgrades to Club and First Class as a routine perk of the job.
link

Who's going to volunteer to start a whip-round for them? :D
 
#2
Thats it, i'm starting the ARRSE party.
I think I'll just about manage on that kind of wage, not forgetting the expenses and if you are lucky use of official cars, the royal flight etc. I can't imagine how they manage the poor things.
 
#3
PartTimePongo said:
Never mind the basic pay , look closely at the expenses.
Last year in total the 659 MPs claimed a staggering £80 million.
£121,396 per MP.

And this is not enough? They really really are taking the pis5.

:pissedoff:
 
#5
I think they deserve there pay if only if its linked
to job cuts and performance related pay :twisted:.
we can lose quite a few MP's apprantly theres a few too many from north of the boarder and in wales
and england may be overrepresented as well :twisted:
if they don't turn up for votes they get fined if I did'nt turn up for my shift I'd get the sack make the ******* clock in :twisted:
and a dress code and targets to meet :twisted:
they want the extra cash lets have some work out of them 8)
 
#6
Rudolph_Hucker said:
Bit harsh chaps.

Don't you think they're worth every penny and a bit more besides?!! :D :D

I'll agree that they are worth pennies, thats about it.
 
#7
theoriginalphantom said:
Thats it, i'm starting the ARRSE party.
I think I'll just about manage on that kind of wage, not forgetting the expenses and if you are lucky use of official cars, the royal flight etc. I can't imagine how they manage the poor things.
Awesome, need any ministers? I'm available for that kinda cash. How hard can making a f*ck up of everything you attempt be?
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#8
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but these jumped up little oiks known as MPs actually work for us, the British taxpayer. We employ them to manage our great country, not the other way round. Now, as their employers shouldn't WE decide on their pay? After all, any other employer decides on what his/her workforce should earn.

Just a thought......
 
#9
Legs said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but these jumped up little oiks known as MPs actually work for us, the British taxpayer. We employ them to manage our great country, not the other way round. Now, as their employers shouldn't WE decide on their pay? After all, any other employer decides on what his/her workforce should earn.

Just a thought......

We could take that a stage further, for example introducing performance related pay.
They'd be paying us by the end of the month.
 
#10
Guys, guys...

It's not the MPs you need to worry about, nor the middle/high ranking Civil Servants who make similar (equally deserved) wages.

It's those dole scroungers and immigrants you want to be directing your ire at. Some of them get £56 a week you know. Parasites!
 
#11
Sorry, saw the title to this post and thought that the SO1 Boots and Socks was dripping again........
 
#12
Legs said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but these jumped up little oiks known as MPs actually work for us, the British taxpayer. We employ them to manage our great country, not the other way round. Now, as their employers shouldn't WE decide on their pay? After all, any other employer decides on what his/her workforce should earn.

Just a thought......
Well, technically, they work for Aunty Betty, not the taxpayer. We just decide whether to let them keep their job every four years. However, now we're onto the subject of elections, surely under the arrangements by which the governing party draws its power and legitimacy (the mandate system via the manifesto), the qualities of an individual MP doesn't really matter, because their job is to support the party leadership.

I find it laughable that their concern is that they use salary to attract the most capable people possible, while overlooking that logic when it pertains to other public servants. They have no aversion to using and abusing other peoples' commitment and sense of duty then. Do we really want people representing us who got into the game just because they think it'd be a good gig? And how many MPs leave the Commons to take up high paid "real" jobs in the private sector, that do not rely on their former proximity to power (lobbying, non-executive directorships, the media etc.)?
 
#13
Add to their salary their huge amounts of holiday - Parliament hardly sits between Jul and Oct. Plus half of them claim for a researcher whilst employing their wife. The other half do employ a researcher, but how they employ them is another question!
 
#14
Why we pay them anything other than a very basic living plus expenses is beyond me. They aren't there to make a salary; they're there to provide the membership of a debating chamber which should be passing and amending as few laws as possible consistent with public order. The 'gifted amateur', committed political activist and true servant of the people doesn't need the sort of dosh they shovel up.
 
#15
Rudolph_Hucker said:
Bit harsh chaps.

Don't you think they're worth every penny and a bit more besides?!! :D :D
I think my balls just dropped, no but to tell you the truth I think they should have a pay-cut, then they might understand why people really ask for an pay increase.. these MPs get allot of money, money that could be better spent elsewhere :)

*Well that's my opinion and maybe not the others who visit here like yours :) but really it's all nuts :(
*They need to live in the real world in order to administer it has it should be, not high as kites and living the high life!
 
#16
Whiskybreath said:
Why we pay them anything other than a very basic living plus expenses is beyond me. They aren't there to make a salary; they're there to provide the membership of a debating chamber which should be passing and amending as few laws as possible consistent with public order. The 'gifted amateur', committed political activist and true servant of the people doesn't need the sort of dosh they shovel up.
Here Here! too that!!!

*Whatever happend to "lead my example"
 
#17
Thank you sir. I'll go further. Membership of that august body in the first chamber should be limited to the 'gifted amateur' etc, at strictly limited levels of compensation for their efforts; membership of the second, mediating chamber should be restricted to quotas of the elder statesmen of all the professions - those with the most in the way of grey cells of all of us - and be similarly recompensed.

That should get rid of the placemen and wasters I see in the lists.
 
#18
All MPs expenses ect can be foung on the link below,

excellent website
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
I seem to remember that when the Fireshirkers were on strike (for 40%, I think) the point was made by many that there were still plenty of people trying to get into the Fire Service, despite their 'low wages'. The same applies here - is there a shortage of people wishing to be MPs? Have we had any by-elections without candidates? I think not, and rest my case.

BTW, MPs pay used to be linked to the Civil Service old 'National Grade 7' pay level - which is currently, I can assure you, a great deal less than an MP's wage (and that's without the expenses, and the ability to employ your Missus as a 'Researcher').
 
#20
I agree with you all but wish to add:

Reduce the salary of the b******s until there are only 3 candidates for each post.

I would go further and base their salary on a combination of the number of people who vote for them, the percentage of the turnout and the basic salary of a trained Tom or Nurse.

And I would insist that 5 year's experience as a soldier or nurse was one of the essential competences for the job.

Litotes
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top