MPs call for huge 25% pay hike

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Adam(KOS), May 20, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sorry if this has been done But it's the first I've heard of this ( for a while.) It was seems that they are still trying for a pay rise 'slightly' above the rest of the public services.

    May be this will get a few votes .......... Not!

    Greedy MPs call for huge 25% pay hike
    (What's this?) MPs are demanding a £15,000 pay rise - saying the current £62,000 a year does not reflect the importance of their job.

    A committee of senior MPs, led by Speaker Michael Martin, has decided they deserve between £10,000 and £15,000 a year more.

    I don't know if this is acurate but I'm suprised we haven't heard more.. :roll: Link..
  2. Can see why Sven's trying to get into this game now :roll:
  3. Link doesn't work.
    I sincerely fooking hope it isn't true. Sadly I don't have much rouble believing it.
    Should sack the bloody lot of them
  4. I believe it - especially as it's Gorbals Mick that's suggesting it! Definately time for the revolution brothers! Time was when only gentlemen of substance - either inherited or self made - went into politcs and it was an unpaid job. Thought the idea of union support was to pay for the 'working mans representation'
    These b******s have screwed us up, bled us dry in taxes and still want to kick us in the teeth.
    This lot make Stallin and Chairman Mao look like bloody tooth fairies!
  5. You can't run your household on 62K? I notice the careful avoidance of mentioning the expenses and grants that come with the job.

    If you want to see every major union in this country go on wildcat strike , this would be the way to go about it.
  6. Oh come on, they work ever so hard..!
  7. Where the f*ck did these 'experts' come from? :?

    What size backhander have they taken from MP's? :?

    Can they do the next AFPRB? :D
  8. fine they want a pay rise let them have one
    but :twisted:
    the public demand it be earned :twisted:
    lets look at the hours and holidays surely 20 days and bank holidays would be plenty? :twisted:
    performance related pay and a quarterly review of performance carried out by an independent inspection body :twisted:
    saving must be made a few less welsh and Scottish mps for a starters :twisted:
    a new healthy eating regime with sodhexo running the catering with an obesity and the bars closed need to set an example epidemic MP's need to take a lead suggest morning P.t. :D
    maybe a corporate dress code :roll:
  9. This is just the same story by another newspaper, dredged up two weeks ago. As I said at the time, why isn't this CROSS PARTY committee reported in Hansard? Why aren't Lib Dem members of the committee WHO ARE AGAINST SUCH A LARGE HIKE IN WAGES confirming the story and raising hell? Why are the articles (and I use it in the loosest possible terms) relying on an anonymous, unattributable source when they could be asking the committee members if it was true.

    Possibly because the story is bollox?
  10. The really bad thing is that most of the weasles earn as much or more in expenses than they do in wages (why do you think they are fighting so hard to maintain no disclosure) So in all they are all on 100K plus and we also pay to decorate their houses. The Blairs for example were property multi millionairs while he was in office. So much for the red flag eh! In my humble opinion they are all cheating thieving tossers.
  11. Gobmint rejected the Senior Salaries Review Body proposals. The position is as set out here:

    On the other hand, is it possible that Gorbals Mick and his crew are now trying to hike the basic pay in order to limit any future "expenses" rows?

    Let us not forget that there is a reason for the MP's pay versus "expenses" row:
  12. The fuckwits can't run the country on the billions of pounds of tax they get, Theres no chance of them running a home with "only" 62k.