MPs to get 10% pay rise

Not that I'm calling you a liar but I'd be interested to see the link to your source of information as I'm surprised that there is not a complete media stink to the tune of "MP's still claiming twice as much as their annual salary in expenses."
As others have said, it's mostly the costs of running their office(s). So theoretically none of it should be ending up in their pockets, but going on rent, salaries etc.

Of course, employing friends and family blurs that a bit... (and who do you rent from, buy services from etc. etc). With a half-decent accountant i'm sure you could game the system plenty, just like any other.

Plenty of public websites keep track of MP's accounts, and a lot of them will post them on their official websites in order to be/appear transparent.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
Sounds like an unbiased system - government employees regulate the people they work for.
 

Mr_Pink

War Hero
Have quoted the whole thing, and too thick to unf*ck. Sorry!

What a charmingly naive view of politics. Paying people the “going rate”, as you put it, has no influence at all on who becomes an MP and how good (or bad) they are....[/QUOTE]

Course it does. For evidence, see post #38 above. And, for what it's worth, I wouldn't do it for that money either. And that's just on this thread.

MPs see the representation of their constituents as an abstraction at best. That’s not their job at all. It’s a fop to justify their true task: which is to make sure that legislation gets passed that ensures that the Capitalists can continue to suck the life-blood...continues in similar Das Kapital vein...[/QUOTE]

Any evidence for that?

You reckon that they’re worth more, but who actually calculates that? Many folks in normal jobs are genuinely worth far more than they get (nurses, firefighters, ambulance personnel, etc), but for some illogical reason, they’re subject to a different yardstick than managers and MPs. Why is that?
More people are capable of being a nurse, firefighter, or ambulance person, than are capable of being a manager or MP. Not making any value judgements, but that's the way it is.

And why do MPs get subsidised meals, drinks and many other perks, benefits and privileges that are entirely unique to their job? Why are they such a “special case” with outrageous claims for expenses that normal folks can only dream about?
Why are these expenses outrageous? They're definitely not unique. I don't pay for any food/drink/sundries when on the client site, the reasoning being that I'm disadvantaged by not being able to get the same, but cheaper, if I was at home.

What MPs should be getting is the average wage with justifiable expenses. Then we really would get effective MPs who're there because they're dedicated to the cause of actually improving the lives of folks in the country.
I doubt it. I think the actually effect you'd see would be to weight the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the independently wealthy.

We should rid ourselves of the quaint notion that MPs are there to “serve the public (good)”. They’re not and never have been. They’re in it for what they can get and serving the public good is the very last thing on their minds. What they want is to network and make connections so that they can step into a few highly paid directorships after their spell in parliament. It’s just another racket, really.
There's a number of counter arguments to this. In the interests of brevity, what about just one; Sajid Javid. Earning in the region of £3m pa when he left Deutsche to stand as an MP. There aren't too many directorships paying you that.
 
Last edited:

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Have quoted the whole thing, and too thick to unf*ck. Sorry!
OK. No problem and thanks for the responses. I really get the impression that you don't seem to realise just how hopelessly corrupt the whole system is. The bankers, the arms industry, the insurance industry and just about every other major industry have their placewo/men seconded to the relevant gobment departments "helping" to formulate laws governing their respective sectors. And not just a few; there are hundreds of them. It's small wonder that Josephine and Joe Normal always pull the short straw under such circumstances. We need a completely new and demonstrably transparent system to combat that, neutralise all the vested interests and introduce a minimum of equality. Bringing in a few general Socialist principles would be a good start.

MsG
 
but rather because they went to the right schools/universities and knew the right folks. In short, they had the connections.
Ah the typical excuse of the utter failure. I'd have played for Man Utd if I had the connections.


MPs see the representation of their constituents as an abstraction at best. That’s not their job at all. It’s a fop to justify their true task: which is to make sure that legislation gets passed that ensures that the Capitalists can continue to suck the life-blood out of the economy for their own selfish ends.

Jesus Christ. You thick cunnt

MsG
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
OK. No problem and thanks for the responses. I really get the impression that you don't seem to realise just how hopelessly corrupt the whole system is. The bankers, the arms industry, the insurance industry and just about every other major industry have their placewo/men seconded to the relevant gobment departments "helping" to formulate laws governing their respective sectors. And not just a few; there are hundreds of them. It's small wonder that Josephine and Joe Normal always pull the short straw under such circumstances. We need a completely new and demonstrably transparent system to combat that, neutralise all the vested interests and introduce a minimum of equality. Bringing in a few general Socialist principles would be a good start.

MsG
Bugs my dear old thing

We do realise how terribly corrupt the "system" is. It has been noticed. I am getting so fond of your naivety that I could cuddle you and tell you that everything is going to be all right.

No system is ever going to be demonstrably transparent. It cannot be. Transparent? To whom? I'm sure that Stalin had as clear a view on his Soviet empire as anyone. So who is accountable and how? Now not even you has an answer to that. Neutralise all vested interests? In a world economy? Oh dear oh dear.

Minimum of equality? Now what does that mean? Its a rather old and totally silly phrase what means absolutely nothing.

Socialist principles are outdated. Bugs, we are in a new century (and have been for 15 years - not that you have noticed that much) and things happen differently here and now to when Karl had a think in the British Museum.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Your wo/man Widow11 decided to display her/his own “thickosity” by declaring:
Jesus Christ. You thick cunnt
Since when was I classed as “thick”, goobie? You offered no counterargument at all, just the vague expectation that arguing with Bugsy would somehow prove to be advantageous to your ARRSE career. Some hope! Just because you’re naive enough to fall for (and actually believe) the Capitalist propaganda, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s right and in any way an equitable system for the world economy. More fool you!
No system is ever going to be demonstrably transparent. It cannot be. Transparent? To whom? I'm sure that Stalin had as clear a view on his Soviet empire as anyone. So who is accountable and how? Now not even you has an answer to that. Neutralise all vested interests? In a world economy? Oh dear oh dear.
Sorry, mercurydancer, but I see no reason why a political system can’t be transparent. The very reason why politicians are regarded with the utmost distrust in most countries is because there’s very little transparency. It appears to most folks that it’s just a system to enrich the already rich and hand all the advantages to those already advantaged. That may be true or not, but more transparency would go a long way to convincing normal folks that they’re not being fücked over by the “privileged classes” – which, in reality, they are.
Minimum of equality? Now what does that mean? Its a rather old and totally silly phrase what means absolutely nothing.
There can never be a peaceful, happier and more optimistic world without a drastic reduction of inequality. That’s a proven fact. Even the privileged would benefit, since the urge to acquire any “totems” qualifying “status” would lose their appeal. That doesn’t mean that everything would be reduced to zero, but would rather involve much more community work to qualify for “status”. You might find that comical, but I’ve seen it happen (and been intimately involved with it) in the GDR.
Socialist principles are outdated. Bugs, we are in a new century (and have been for 15 years - not that you have noticed that much) and things happen differently here and now to when Karl had a think in the British Museum.
The centuries don’t matter, mercurydancer. What you disparagingly call “Socialist principles” are in fact the very bedrock of our societies. Think about it.

The fact is that the condition of normal folks hasn’t fundamentally changed since the Middle Ages. An “upper and lower” society. We’re now in the 21st Century and we have an extremely accurate map of what’s going on in the world. It should not be beyond us to develop a system whereby every single person on the planet has basic human dignity and enough to eat, drink and a roof over their heads. We easily have the financial means and resources to accomplish that. So why don’t we do it?

MsG
 
Your wo/man Widow11 decided to display her/his own “thickosity” by declaring:

Since when was I classed as “thick”, goobie? You offered no counterargument at all, just the vague expectation that arguing with Bugsy would somehow prove to be advantageous to your ARRSE career. Some hope! Just because you’re naive enough to fall for (and actually believe) the Capitalist propaganda, doesn’t automatically mean that it’s right and in any way an equitable system for the world economy. More fool you!

Sorry, mercurydancer, but I see no reason why a political system can’t be transparent. The very reason why politicians are regarded with the utmost distrust in most countries is because there’s very little transparency. It appears to most folks that it’s just a system to enrich the already rich and hand all the advantages to those already advantaged. That may be true or not, but more transparency would go a long way to convincing normal folks that they’re not being fücked over by the “privileged classes” – which, in reality, they are.

There can never be a peaceful, happier and more optimistic world without a drastic reduction of inequality. That’s a proven fact. Even the privileged would benefit, since the urge to acquire any “totems” qualifying “status” would lose their appeal. That doesn’t mean that everything would be reduced to zero, but would rather involve much more community work to qualify for “status”. You might find that comical, but I’ve seen it happen (and been intimately involved with it) in the GDR.

The centuries don’t matter, mercurydancer. What you disparagingly call “Socialist principles” are in fact the very bedrock of our societies. Think about it.

The fact is that the condition of normal folks hasn’t fundamentally changed since the Middle Ages. An “upper and lower” society. We’re now in the 21st Century and we have an extremely accurate map of what’s going on in the world. It should not be beyond us to develop a system whereby every single person on the planet has basic human dignity and enough to eat, drink and a roof over their heads. We easily have the financial means and resources to accomplish that. So why don’t we do it?

MsG
Why would I offer a counter argument to the same GCSE politics toss trotted out by any 15 year old angst ridden girl. It's the same in nearly any Guardian article, bunches of absolute wasters dribbling on about the 1% and capitalist lackeys and politicians receiving their orders from shadowy overlords.

Meanwhile the people, and the world reject their politics leaving the perpetrators of this bollocks arguing that they are definitely right but are the only ones clever enough to see it.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Why would I offer a counter argument to the same GCSE politics toss trotted out by any 15 year old angst ridden girl.
I never really expected any counterargument from you, booger! Because you've no fückin' idea of what's going on? Because you've succumbed to the idea that Capitalism is the dog's bollix? Despite it (Capitalism) only actually advantaging all folks for 15 years (1950 to 1965) of its over 200-year reign? Ever thought about that, doobie? Typical!

MsG
 
I never really expected any counterargument from you, booger! Because you've no fückin' idea of what's going on? Because you've succumbed to the idea that Capitalism is the dog's bollix? Despite it (Capitalism) only actually advantaging all folks for 15 years (1950 to 1965) of its over 200-year reign? Ever thought about that, doobie? Typical!

MsG
Yep that's right. All I know is that I worked quite hard and earn an ok and soon to be much better living.

The wasters who did **** all are getting their arrses handed to them by the conservative government.

Life is sweet.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
Yep that's right. All I know is that I worked quite hard and earn an ok and soon to be much better living.

The wasters who did **** all are getting their arrses handed to them by the conservative government.

Life is sweet.
Just to be precise and to understand what you mean by "wasters", widow plus number. Would that also include the members of the House of Lords who clock in and then immediately leave just to trouser the £300 per day? Are those the sort of "wasters" you're on about? Or are they somehow "exempt" from your judgement? Just asking, like.

MaG
 

Oxygen_Thief

On ROPS
On ROPs
Less the press intrusion part - I can think of quite a few people on here that did most of that for significantly less.

And replace commuting to london with deploying to Dangerous sandy places.
@widow11


I know plenty of soldiers who deployed on fairly frequent 6 month+ tours of Iraq, Afghanistan etc (not to mention Sierra Leone, support to the Ebola 'crisis', Kosovo, Bosnia, NI, etc as well as being posted abroad to Cyprus, Germany, Bahrain and lots of other places).

Then add on all the exercises, stagging on and bone jobs. And the CIMIC stuff.

The military way of life ensures you spend a lot of time away from your family, and interferes with your ability to lead a social life similar to that of a civilian (admittedly there are some social perks to be military).

Commuting, Tedious work, absence from family and friends etc - would you care to explain a bit why any of that is bullshit?

And unless you're a Lt Col+ you won't be earning anywhere near £74k (plus £100k+ worth of expenses) for the privilege.
 
I have heard a whole raft of politicians trying to defend this on grounds that body is independent and cannot therefore be over-ruled - all nonsense of course. There was even a labour bint trying to claim that if they were in power Ministers' salaries would have been cut by 5% - presumably a policy decided once they realised they wouldn't have any.

This could all be simply resolved by introducing two simple bills. First introduce a proper power of re-call (which was promised by all before the 2010 election but never happened). Once that is in place, give all MPs a free vote on whether to accept a 10% increase - it would be a brave man/woman who risked a by-election in the face of a disgruntled electorate.
 

jim30

LE
£74k is what an SO1 is earning, and well below market rates for many positions of similar responsibility in private sector. Most mo's are heavily indebted, as the cost of getting into the Commons is huge - they usually have to fund two or three election campaigns in no hope seats out of their pockets prior to getting a winable seat to run in. By the time they are there, they're usually in a lot of debt.

Its a harder job than it looks, you have to deal with the idiot public all day long - imagine the moonbat FOI people you sometimes see of the 'rmp abdicted my granny' variety, and you know what i mean. You are on call on antisocial hours for voting. Tou have limited to no say in your life, and expected to work seven days per week when required with both house and constituency business. Most mp's i've met seem permanently knackered from the job, which can best be summed up as a more glamorous version of being a punch bag for all and sundry.

I briefly looked into running for Parliament once and realised that i'd be taking on thousands in debt in return for years of dealing with voters, and no power to show for it unless i somehow stabbed enough people in the back to become a minister. I realised a far easier way to climb the greasy pole of backstabbing was to become a Greenjacket instead.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
@widow11


I know plenty of soldiers who deployed on fairly frequent 6 month+ tours of Iraq, Afghanistan etc (not to mention Sierra Leone, support to the Ebola 'crisis', Kosovo, Bosnia, NI, etc as well as being posted abroad to Cyprus, Germany, Bahrain and lots of other places).

Then add on all the exercises, stagging on and bone jobs. And the CIMIC stuff.

The military way of life ensures you spend a lot of time away from your family, and interferes with your ability to lead a social life similar to that of a civilian (admittedly there are some social perks to be military).

Commuting, Tedious work, absence from family and friends etc - would you care to explain a bit why any of that is bullshit?

And unless you're a Lt Col+ you won't be earning anywhere near £74k (plus £100k+ worth of expenses) for the privilege.
Because the idea that soldiers should get paid more is bollocks, as is comparing them to MPs because they go to sandy dangerous places. Don't use the 'soldier as victim' as an example. You don't get paid on the basis of how hard your job is, you get paid on how many people can do it. You can join the army as an unskilled 16 year old. You will have a responsibility of virtually nothing and get paid well for you skill and experience level.
 

Mr_Pink

War Hero
I have heard a whole raft of politicians trying to defend this on grounds that body is independent and cannot therefore be over-ruled - all nonsense of course. There was even a labour bint trying to claim that if they were in power Ministers' salaries would have been cut by 5% - presumably a policy decided once they realised they wouldn't have any.

This could all be simply resolved by introducing two simple bills. First introduce a proper power of re-call (which was promised by all before the 2010 election but never happened). Once that is in place, give all MPs a free vote on whether to accept a 10% increase - it would be a brave man/woman who risked a by-election in the face of a disgruntled electorate.
It is independent. And it can't be overruled. That's the point.

I agree on the power of recall (under certain conditions), but why are you so wrapped around the axle about a <£5M extra spend, 40% of which will be coming back to the Exchequer anyway? I don't get the compulsion to thrash MPs' terms and conditions when any fule kno that in this life, you get what you pay for.

That ~£5M is about 0.01% of what we'll be spending on debt interest alone this year; you never know, if a few years ago we'd been able to fill the Commons with, I don't know, adequately renumerated Big 4 audit partners rather than ex-local authority workers and independently minted policy wonks with zero commercial experience, we might not be in quite the mess we are.

But no, on reflection, much better to keep treating them like whipping boys while simultaneously wondering why the quality bar is so low.
 

Oxygen_Thief

On ROPS
On ROPs
Because the idea that soldiers should get paid more is bollocks, as is comparing them to MPs because they go to sandy dangerous places. Don't use the 'soldier as victim' as an example. You don't get paid on the basis of how hard your job is, you get paid on how many people can do it. You can join the army as an unskilled 16 year old. You will have a responsibility of virtually nothing and get paid well for you skill and experience level.
Where did i say that soldiers should get paid more? Post a direct quote.

You either didnt read the thread up until that point, or you just decided to argue with an imaginary point you made up yourself.

In which case, you should be rating your own posts bullshit and not anyone elses.
 
Where did i say that soldiers should get paid more? Post a direct quote.

You either didnt read the thread up until that point, or you just decided to argue with an imaginary point you made up yourself.

In which case, you should be rating your own posts bullshit and not anyone elses.
Ok princess.

You did wibble on about sandy dangerous places and compared a soldier to an MP. Which is an entirely fatuous comparison.

Since MPs pay upsets you so much why don't you stand and get on that gravy train?
 

Oxygen_Thief

On ROPS
On ROPs
Ok princess.

You did wibble on about sandy dangerous places and compared a soldier to an MP. Which is an entirely fatuous comparison.

Since MPs pay upsets you so much why don't you stand and get on that gravy train?
No, I didnt. At all.

You misread what I posted and don't have the good grace to admit you're completely wrong.

Hence the bollocks about being a "princess".


I also didnt compare soldiers to MPs. Someone else mentioned a number of things MPs had to endure as part of earning their salary. I used an example of soldiers because I used to be one, and therefore its something I know about. I could equally have used the example of a policeman, Astronaut or Pig Farmer.

The point was that MPs are not hard done by in the renumeration department.

You then proceeded to ignore what I wrote, the context in which it was written, invented an argument in your own head, posted some wibble about said imaginary argument and then pressed some bullshit buttons with your sausage fingers.

I then asked you why, which you failed to back-up with any sensible reasoning.

Anyway, in the interests of not diverting the thread, we'll leave it here (although I strongly suspect, having read the utter shite you've posted recently, you will feel the need to respond).

Carry on, 'Princess'.
 

Latest Threads

Top