MPs call for '32% salary increase'

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#4
Easy - whatever they were being paid in their previous job (perhaps capped at say £200k) plus expenses in line with the rest of the business world.

If you want to chose a minimum wage mong to represent you in government, you have the right to do so. If you want to vote for someone who has shown some degree of business acumen etc it will just cost you a bit more - in the short term.
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#7
Hmmm on monday the commons debated that people on benefits get 1% and oh look on thursday the commons themselves can have such a difference payrise!
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
I'm hoping that they dont actually propose a 32% increase as I'm sure that would cause a few people to become a tad upset, and it will end in tears. I dont know how many lamp posts there are on the Mall but if there arent enough to hang the MPs individually we will just string them up two at a time. Except Eric Pickles. He will need a lamp post for himself for obvious reasons, the fat knacker.
 
#9
What about the "mug" tax-payers like me, what will I get?
A 32% tax rise and in line with others in the employment of Her Maj as long as we all get the same I'm more than up for it, oops time to wake up........

Actually I do agree that you do get what you pay for and I don't doubt that they earn what they get but to even discuss this in the current climate and situation is not only going to anger the public but it will certainly piss off those of us in crown employment who have, and are facing years of pay freeze and pension reforms etc.

32% is certainly not in line with salary increases in the public sector so my main question is what are they doing today that's worth the not insignificant 32% that they weren't doing last year, or the year before, or the year before that???
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
Easy - whatever they were being paid in their previous job (perhaps capped at say £200k) plus expenses in line with the rest of the business world.
The trouble with that is you'd discourage those who enter Parliament from the trades unions and so forth (a former Speaker being an ex sheet metal worker and such).

While it's endlessly arguable that they may be (or, in the example above, were) useless, you cannot realistically impose a 'whatever salary you were on' condition without impinging an MP's ability to do his or her job effectively.

It would still need a minimum to sustain a political career and a maximum cap (as you've said) to ensure that not only the better off could aspire to it.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#12
Sixty,

I may be missing something but your argument does not make sense to me. They lived on whatever they earnt while working as a trade union rep, they will be given reasonable expenses to meet their out of pocket costs whilst working as an MP - why should they have to be paid more to be an effective MP?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
Sixty,

I may be missing something but your argument does not make sense to me. They lived on whatever they earnt while working as a trade union rep, they will be given reasonable expenses to meet their out of pocket costs whilst working as an MP - why should they have to be paid more to be an effective MP?
That's a very fair point. My argument, patronising as it is, is that being an MP is something that people should aspire to from all walks of life. Should they be less well off they may well not consider doing so if there is no tangible reward beyond service.

Cynical and venal argument but there you go.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#14
That's a very fair point. My argument, patronising as it is, is that being an MP is something that people should aspire to from all walks of life. Should they be less well off they may well not consider doing so if there is no tangible reward beyond service.

Cynical and venal argument but there you go.
Let's compromise then - net income as declared for income tax purposes for the previous tax year plus 10%.
 
#15
MP's have historically backed away from paying themselves properly hence the expenses scandal, at the moment the PM earns less than some local council leaders and MP's earn less than senior union officials. They need to pay themselves properly.
 
S

syledis

Guest
#16
have you seen the QT line up tonight Prescott and Dories, names that feel a pay rise is justified
 
#17
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Proper pay may go someway to getting decent people into politics instead of the dross we currently have.
 
#18
MPs don't get paid enough for their jobs.

Simply, the shadow secretary for defence who will be responsible for circa 200K regs and reservists when in government gets paid the salary of a Lt. Col.? The actual secretary of state for defence gets little more!
 
#19
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Proper pay may go someway to getting decent people into politics instead of the dross we currently have.
I disagree, you will have the same old crowd getting paid more and still scamming as much as they can from the expenses.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using ARRSE mobile app
 
#20
As long as everyone who is employed by the government gets a 32% pay rise I'm all for it.
Especially when borne in mind that MPs don't work for the government, that seems a fair idea.

We could determine which MPs should get the 32% by measuring their pulse. If they have one, tough shit - if they don't they can have the 32% on personal application.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top