MPs to get 10% pay rise

I think it is a far better measure to look at someone's disposable income rather than a gross wage figure.

When your expenses pay for the majority of your day to day living and your daily food and drink is either paid for or heavily subsidised, then their wages don't seem that bad.


Wets.
 
Yep. I too would like to see a plumber who earns 74k a year.
Although it was for TV, I would expect the guys to dumb down their actual salary, not overstate it. It's worth noting that the company boss knew what everyone declared to the TV, so there's no reason to doubt they're incorrect.

Some of the high-earning plumbers, many of them earning £70-80,000 a year but some said to be on six figure salaries, were reluctant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9393303/Show-Me-Your-Money-Channel-4-review.html

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/show-me-your-money
 

Oxygen_Thief

On ROPS
On ROPs
You earn £250k?

Congrats.
Are you a child?

And no, not £250k - where did you pull that magic figure out of? your arrse?

Jesus wept. You're a fcuking moron.

Edit: Just read through your last 50ish posts. And it confirms the above.

I also doubt very much whether you are/were a holder of a Regular Commission. You have the reasoning and ability to articulate a point of a 10 year old. A "special" ten year old.

Mods - definitely worth taking the warning points to tell @widow11 he's a thick, boring cnut.
 
Last edited:

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

Bugs. I was really stating that transparency is unrealistic. I did not say that it was not desirable. Just not possible. It has never happened and within our lifetimes wont happen. Yes the rich get richer and generally screw over the populace.

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.

A proven fact? Where did you get that one from? I suspect your unrealistic ideology. Socialist Soviet Russia reduced inequality. No. They replaced it by a different order of things, like the nomenklatura, which basically meant that there was a new order of privilege. I dont think you saw it in GDR. You may have seen things that fitted your ideology but the actual state of life in GDR was pretty frikken miserable.

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?

Too simplistic bugs. Now who is normal - the upper or lower folks? I have thought about socialist principles. They were thought up by Marx and some other idealists. That type of thought could not have existed in the middle ages because conceptually it was not done. That is historical fact. Socialist principles could not have existed in medieval times.

As for basic human needs, yes, people should have enough to eat, drink and shelter. However, the world today is highly mobile and many of the fuc....the unfortunates of the world seem to think that the more advanced countries owe them something. Therefore they put burdens on our countries that we cannot bear. We dont have the resources for everyone on the planet to live like we do in our advanced countries. Basically it is not equal. It is not going to be. That is the reality of things.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
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 want a pint of whatever he is drinking.
 
£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)
An SO1 will probably have 15 years service behind him and will have been through considerable training and selection to get where he/she is. Compare and contrast to some of the more recently elected MPs. Some in early twenties, one hasn't even completed her degree. Most have been parachuted into safe seats due to family, party or union contacts after following a well practiced route of entry into politics.

In addition, few politicians will need to 'survive' on their paltry MP's income. About a third of MPs will pick up places on committees, most will derive income for writing, commenting, advising and the like. The number who adopt a hair-shirt, puritanical stance on outside income can probably be counted on one hand.

If they don't want to be harangued by the great un-washed - they may well have chosen the wrong career. I suspect most MPs are as adept at dodging constituents as some army officers are at avoiding whinging Toms!

Strange how just a few weeks ago perspective MPs were assuring us all that they would be honoured and proud to represent us if we would only give them a chance. Now, they are over-worked and under-valued and completely incapable of influencing significant issues like their own pay.

If you'd been a Greenjacket, the Lodge would have found you a safe seat anyway
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
This issue of a 10% pay rise for MPs has been great to watch unfold! The MPs are desperate for every penny they can get their venal hands on but have to show that they are horrified at the thought of this relatively huge pay rise.

The squirming they go through as they say that the rise should not be implemented yet it is totally out of their hands as this in the responsibility of a totally independent advisory body! Of course this independent body is recruited, employed, report to and can be sacked by MPs, but are totally independent!

The independent review panel come up with recommendations for MPs pay and MPs say they have to take it. Other pay review bodies last year recommended rises greater than 1% but the government gave them a BFO and either froze pay or gave a grudging 1%. But MPs pay can't be touched.

One rule for one, one for others. The venal, robbing barstewards!
 

Lomax

War Hero
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? 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? 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.
Totally agree here when you say "who calculates that" as it is fundamental to the argument. Oddly, while I don't think you shared his politics you have identified the same logical fallacy that Enoch often challenged when someone said that a particular price was "fair" or "unfair", with the counter question "who decides this price is fair or unfair?".

There I suspect we have difference in the answer though, his answer is that it certainly is not the government, or a small clique of individuals, instead his answer was that it should be the market, based on supply and demand.

I have no disagreement with the idea that a profession like nursing is indeed equally "worthy" or even more "worthy" than a management position and such a system would be better than a small clique awarding well paid people more money, but I believe it is best if all salaries are determined by how much is needed to employ someone to do the job.

One look at our elections and we certainly do not have a shortage of potential MP's at the current salary of £64,000, so why should we pay more? There is no correlation proved between paying more for someone and getting a better politician, in fact the Telegraph show, in an article that was trying to point out that our politicians are fairly lowly paid, that Italian's at ~120k are much better paid, hardly a ringing endorsement for raising salaries.

The best people don't always go for the highest salaries, there are far cleverer people working in brain surgery then most day traders, so a job is valued by more than just how much it pays. I would go further to say that we postively want to avoid making entry into Parliament a route to riches, the primary goal of being a politician shouldn't be to get rich, if they want to do that then they should enter industry (or work on the side if they have the personal industry). I suspect it would be a great loss to our country if entrepreneurs like Richard Branson were lured to parliament by the riches on offer instead of using their talents to build Britain's economy.

So back to MP's, here MP's have a well paying job, with very good perks, a great pension and very importantly it is also a much desired a prestigious position, that last fact seems to be ignored when setting pay, so like all jobs that of a politician should be paid enough to attract people to do the job, no more no less.
 
Last edited:

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Watching Question Time last night I was struck by the coherence and intellect of the two non-MPs on the panel and awfully depressed at the verbose platitudes generated by the 3 MPs, all of whom were experienced and 2 of whom are candidates for leading their party. This was then reinforced by This Week, where MP Clare Short continued to talk crap. We clearly have a quality problem with MPs, and that is unlikely to be fixed by paying them less.

It seems to me that the most important thing is that no one should be economically prevented from being an MP. This means that some sort of transports and accommodation needs to be provided as expenses. But there is no way that the expenses of an MP from distant constituencies should be the same as one who lives in London. It would not require a rocket scientist to produce a package for each constituency.

MPs also have to run two offices, and so some allowance should be paid for a secretary. I don't think that they need researchers, although it might be prudent to have a central, apolitical central research facility for the Houses of Parliament. It may not be possible though.

Which brings us to pay and outside jobs. On the pay side they should not be disadvantaged. So pay them what they earned the year before they entered parliament, with a cap at about current level. Thus, if you are a successful businessman on £100K per year, Parliament pays you £70K. If you a pusty faced PPE graduate earning £25K as a party researcher then £25K you get. Obviously it would need some inflation driver etc.

Second jobs should be allowed, subject to obvious restrictions on when you may debate and vote. So the ex businessman who makes his money in steel milling should not vote on matters directly affecting that sector. Nor should he speak, except at the invitation of the speaker to provide background or expert information. Likewise doctors could not vote on NHS matters. The amount of time that an MP was allowed to spend on his business would be primarily a matter between him/her and his/her constituents.

Turning to the current problem, the independent body was set up to evaluate pay so that MPs did not have to. It may very well be the case that by their remit MPs are underpaid. If they had said "we think MPs need 10%, but with austerity we think they should take 1% only" there would not have been a problem. Solution is for the chairman of the body to resign (for showing a lack of political awareness) and for the replacement to come up with a statement to that effect. The missing 9% does should not be held over, but that does not preclude the possibility that in happier times they may recommend a larger increase.

Finally of course, the reality is that MP's salaries are a drop in the ocean of government spending. This is about leadership, not economics.
 
The independent review panel come up with recommendations for MPs pay and MPs say they have to take it. Other pay review bodies last year recommended rises greater than 1% but the government gave them a BFO and either froze pay or gave a grudging 1%. But MPs pay can't be touched.

One rule for one, one for others. The venal, robbing barstewards!
This!!!

You sum up what is disgusting about this whole saga. Not the thought of them earning more money than a Paramedic or a telecoms engineer.

The fact that they have chosen to completely ignore pay review bodies recommendations for years now but when it comes to themselves "our hands are tied."

The cynic in me would think this was all smoke and mirrors and they're hoping that when they eventually come out and say "we're only accepting 1% like the rest of you" we'll all fall in love with them again.
 
I think CMD's reasoning for not contesting the IPSA's decision further is that if he did, it wouldn't be very independent, would it?

He has already requested/recommended that they come up with an increase less liable to pi$$ off so many, but this decision has been held over since the last Parliament.
 
Last edited:

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
think CMD's reasoning for not contesting the IPSA's decision is that if he did, it wouldn't be very independent, would it?

He has already requested/recommended that they come up with an increase less liable to pi$$ off so many, but this decision has already been held over since the last Parliament.
Fair point, although there is a contradiction between those two statements. I do think that CMD is entirely within his right, given that IPSA is a new agency, to clarify it's remit. I would make such a clarification by issuing P45s all round, but no doubt it will be done gently over a glass of something...
 
Logical point noted and original post edited.

My argument is that if CMD tells instead of asking, it undermines the concept of an 'Independent' Parliamentary Standards Authority
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
CMD tells instead of asking, it undermines the concept of an 'Independent' Parliamentary Standards Authority
True.
But it was set up by Parliament, and clearly whoever wrote the guidelines forgot to add a rider to use common sense. As the vast majority of MPs seem deeply embarrassed I don't think it would be hard (or necessary) for him to obtain a mandate for adjusting the terms of reference.

Which I think is what will happen. How much does the chair of IPSA earn? My CV is ready to go..
 

Chef

LE
The argument that if the pay is not high enough the talent will go elsewhere is tosh, see below as regards footballers and bankers, both highly paid.

The fact that no seat has as far as I am aware been empty or had a single candidate to contest it would appear to show that the current package is attracting applicants aplenty.

The late Mr Kennedy went from school to uni to HoC pretty much seamlessly as have many other MPs so I would like to know the going rate for a third year student is. £74k pa is a bit high for a first job no? Bearing in mind that MPs have only been paid since 1911 and no seats before that were empty due pay and conditions being poor.

Although the argument is used that MPs could get more in the real world that doesn't hold up for a couple of reasons:

Firstly how much would say Mr Blair have earned as a lawyer? Or Mr Kinnock as a college lecturer. Milord Patten as a reporter?

Secondly if they can earn huge amounts outside and are working as MPs I would point out that MPing is voluntary so maybe they are doing it from a sense of duty, NOT FOR THE CASH (MPs with integrity, who'd have thought it?)

As for it being an all consuming job, bah humbug. Many MPs have outside 'interests' which require time commitments. One I believe is also a working GP, strangely another job that that profession claims is all day every day.

Maybe if the HoC feels strongly about perhaps they'll go on strike.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
The argument that if the pay is not high enough the talent will go elsewhere is tosh, see below as regards footballers and bankers, both highly paid.

The fact that no seat has as far as I am aware been empty or had a single candidate to contest it would appear to show that the current package is attracting applicants aplenty.

The late Mr Kennedy went from school to uni to HoC pretty much seamlessly as have many other MPs so I would like to know the going rate for a third year student is. £74k pa is a bit high for a first job no? Bearing in mind that MPs have only been paid since 1911 and no seats before that were empty due pay and conditions being poor.

Although the argument is used that MPs could get more in the real world that doesn't hold up for a couple of reasons:

Firstly how much would say Mr Blair have earned as a lawyer? Or Mr Kinnock as a college lecturer. Milord Patten as a reporter?

Secondly if they can earn huge amounts outside and are working as MPs I would point out that MPing is voluntary so maybe they are doing it from a sense of duty, NOT FOR THE CASH (MPs with integrity, who'd have thought it?)

As for it being an all consuming job, bah humbug. Many MPs have outside 'interests' which require time commitments. One I believe is also a working GP, strangely another job that that profession claims is all day every day.

Maybe if the HoC feels strongly about perhaps they'll go on strike.
Perhaps they'd like to reduce their pensions like they've done to everyone else in the public sector. If everyone else's aren't affordable then I'm quite sure theirs aren't.
 

Latest Threads

Top