We are all in this together

[narmour]

double post sorry

 

[narmour]

Unfortunately you are all missing the point. The MP's pay was set by an independent body and even though all the party leaders and probably a fair proportion of the MP's don't want it there is nothing they can do about it.

They can make an amendment to the bill which set up this independant body which allows MPs to vote on whether they should accept the payrise or not.

 

[narmour]

I think MP`s should be paid more I think £100,000 pa...........but listen
No second job
No second house expenses
No expenses at all
No travel expenses
No hotel expenses
No food expenses

A yearly salary of £100,000, paid monthly. They should also be banned from employing a member of their family as a sectratary (sp) on silly wages.

This will sort a few of them out.

How many people have to exist in the capital city on a tenth of that, with exactly the same conditions attached to them?

 

[Aleman]

I've emailed my MP to ask what he is going to do with his.

I work in the public sector So far I have had 6 Years of below inflation 'rises' (including several 0% rises), My Pension has been ****** about with. I have been 'At Risk' of redundancy for the last 4 years (and the next two at least). I have had to take 4 days unpaid leave for the last 4 years . . . going up to 5 for the next two. All In all I reckon I am around 400 quid a month worse off that before these clowns made it into 'government'

So Mr MP . . . just when am I going to get my "Catch Up" pay rise just like you do? . . . Oh and my pay rise is also set by an 'independent body'

I don't expect much of a reply . . . maybe it's time to do what the Thais have done, and see if they have the shame to call an early election . . . . Nah not going to happen.

If I took a fixed term contact in London, I'd have to pay all my expenses, and in the sector I work in I get called in at all hours to fix issues, so how is being an MP any different to a fixed term contractor?

 

[Tim_Crowhurst]

There have to be more decent men in Parliament than just old Tony Benn

There's at least one decent woman I can think of: Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion. How many other British politicians are willing to be arrested for their views? She was just a few months ago.

I lost my job due to ill-health several years ago, and although I'm not happy about the reason why, I'm half-glad it happened when it did because it was public-sector and by now I'd have been going into the fourth year of a pay-freeze. At the time I was earning enough to save about £1K/year (about 5% of my income) which I did like a sensible citizen. Even if I was still doing that job, and there had been no pay freeze, there's no way I'd have been able to save any money by now since my four major outlays - season ticket, rent, food and bills - have all increased at significantly above inflation since then, and pay rises were usually slightly below inflation. Add in the pay freeze and I'd be short by about £1K/year at this point. By contrast, having been ill since then means my income has fallen less than 1%.

 

[TRXnMe]

I think MP`s should be paid more I think £100,000 pa...........but listen
No second job
No second house expenses
No expenses at all
No travel expenses
No hotel expenses
No food expenses

A yearly salary of £100,000, paid monthly. They should also be banned from employing a member of their family as a sectratary (sp) on silly wages.

This will sort a few of them out.

Not too sure about paying an attractive wage for the job, the money should not be the reason people choose to go into politics, it should be because they want to make the world a better place, starting with their own ward. Pay a decent wage yes, say £40 to £45k pa, cut back on available perks and see who still wants to be an MP, all personal and family members bank accounts have to be declared and would be subject to scrutiny every year (catch back handers).

Banning travel expenses is a bit off, especially if 'we' are the ones making them travel to other countries on diplomatic jobs, but the expenses should be fully receipted and for justifiable routes and passenger class, ie premium economy for long haul, not first or business.

As far as second houses are concerened, we should provide them, any borough far enough away from Westminster to not allow a reasonable commute each day should own a house near parliament, the elected bod uses it while in London, we the tax payer get the benefit of any increase in value of tht house, not the MP.

Agreed about secretaries, employing their rellies should be banned, hell, if they are caught bonking their secretaries they should be investigated for prostitution!

 

[Billyb83]

I know this is probably going to be unpopular but am I the only one on here that wants politicians to be on a decent wage? Its all very well saying pay them 50 grand but if they are any good they will just go and work for a private company where they can earn hundreds of thousands a year more than that, it would take a much better man than me to stay in politics if I had that option. I know that for 50 grand you are not going to get the dregs of society, and it would be a very good wage compared to mine but you are not going to attract the best young people from industry for that. When you consider how much anyone vaguely high up in banking, manufacturing, IT earn then even 100K is very low. If you consider there are some head teachers on more than that how can you expect your PM to be on less?

Having said all that I would want them to have no second house or most of the other expenses that people have mentioned, expect travel for business. I would also expect value for money from their wages, I would want us to hold our own against the banks and Europe and make good decisions that make sense, something I don't think we have done recently.

 

[Aleman]

When 75% of the MP's in the House are millionaires, where do you draw the line as to a decent wage.

Especially when you consider that even after making a total F*ck up of the job for 5 years they can slide into a nice directorship or two at the banks, NHS 'trusts' (Read private company :evil: ), Energy Company etc

 

[Runwell-Steve]

I know this is probably going to be unpopular but am I the only one on here that wants politicians to be on a decent wage? Its all very well saying pay them 50 grand but if they are any good they will just go and work for a private company where they can earn hundreds of thousands a year more than that, it would take a much better man than me to stay in politics if I had that option. I know that for 50 grand you are not going to get the dregs of society, and it would be a very good wage compared to mine but you are not going to attract the best young people from industry for that. When you consider how much anyone vaguely high up in banking, manufacturing, IT earn then even 100K is very low. If you consider there are some head teachers on more than that how can you expect your PM to be on less?

Having said all that I would want them to have no second house or most of the other expenses that people have mentioned, expect travel for business. I would also expect value for money from their wages, I would want us to hold our own against the banks and Europe and make good decisions that make sense, something I don't think we have done recently.

I agree with you completely.
I earn more than most MPs and there is no way I would consider doing their job for the money they get. But, they should not be allowed to have second jobs and their expenses must be controlled.

Travel expenses are however costly, especially if that means hotels in London which are rarely available under £200 per night so some form of permanent London accommodation would probably work out cheaper. Having said that these should be centrally owned and MPs would just be allowed to use them.

Personally I am currently claiming approx £1,500 per week in expenses just for my personal travel, meals and hotel accommodation in London. Glad I'm not am MP and having my expenses scrutinised by the public :)

 

[Aleman]

When there was a proposal to turn the former GLC headquarters into a 'hostel' for MP's it was voted down by the house . . . . For the life of me I can't understand why ?? :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:


Subsidised living accommodation, and canteen . . . in the centre of London, close to the House . . . I obviously must be missing something as it seems a no brainer to me

 

[TRXnMe]

I know this is probably going to be unpopular but am I the only one on here that wants politicians to be on a decent wage? Its all very well saying pay them 50 grand but if they are any good they will just go and work for a private company where they can earn hundreds of thousands a year more than that, it would take a much better man than me to stay in politics if I had that option. I know that for 50 grand you are not going to get the dregs of society, and it would be a very good wage compared to mine but you are not going to attract the best young people from industry for that. When you consider how much anyone vaguely high up in banking, manufacturing, IT earn then even 100K is very low. If you consider there are some head teachers on more than that how can you expect your PM to be on less?

Having said all that I would want them to have no second house or most of the other expenses that people have mentioned, expect travel for business. I would also expect value for money from their wages, I would want us to hold our own against the banks and Europe and make good decisions that make sense, something I don't think we have done recently.

Bound to be unpopular, but I understand the argument, in some ways I agree with it.....

But, always a but isn't there?

I do not think anyone should get into politics for the money, they should want to be contributing a better country, making the place nicer to live in, easier to live, however you want to describe a more just and equitable society.

There was a guy on radio 2 today sayng that the MP selection committees only had two types of candidate approach them now; young professional politicians (ex researchers usually) with no life outside of politics and middle aged people who had run into a dead end with their careers.

Considering I think professional politicians should be taken out and got rid of, that leaves the latter, people who have experienced life, but now want to swap to politics either for the right reason, or because the £60k+ pa is more money than they are earning. If paying £74k pa could guarantee the earlier type applied for the job in droves I'd go for it in heartbeat.

My problem is, that I think the sort of person who really wants to make the country better has a pretty dim view of the idiots we repeatedly elect to parliament and has no desire to actually join them

Their behaviour in the house is akin to chimpanzees, all the need to add is the flinging of feaces at each other and they are there.

Their financial behaviour (minority only, but the rest did little to sort the problem out) over the last 20 odd years has been close to criminal.

Why would any self respecting, decent, honest person want to be associated with that bunch of people?

The few decent folks who have been in the house, Tony Benn for example, have developed the view that an MP has only slightly more influence over the country than a pilot has over a crashing plane

 

[Jeltz]

MP's pay is a total mess. The expenses system was used as a back handed way of supplementing it.

These people are in charge of representing the people of their constituency and voting on the way the country is run so it is a really important job, alas it is currently staffed by a mixture of idealists and people with family money and the reason for that is that as a nation we are paying peanuts, so its no surprise that we have monkeys.

I agree totally with the people who are in favour of well paid MP's, in order to attract the kind of people who would hold top roles in business and the academic world you need a reward system which is appropriate, however at the moment MP's earn less than a head teacher or doctor etc. which is hardly the kind of package that would attract someone who would otherwise be an Oxford don or on the board of ICI. No disrespect to teachers and doctors but they aren't running the country, and this job should be done by the best possible people.

I also think we have too many MP's and could easily halve the numbers. I would like to see a system where MP's are paid at rates equivalent to board members of multinational companies but with very few expenses. If they all had 1st class rail travel or a car and driver and government provided accommodation when they are in Westminster so that expenses would be minimised and there would be none of this 2nd homes allowance rubbish.

To avoid conflicts of interest MP's should not be allowed to hold consultancies or take an active role within a business while serving. Voting at AGM's and EGM's should be the extent of the activities if they are shareholders in a company.

 

[TRXnMe]

Probably have to prevent shareholding, or it could lead to all sorts of shenanigans.

I get shares in the company I work for and have to be very careful about selling them, insider trading and all that.

Question is, how do you start with a clean slate, without hiring a mercenary with a penchant for black powder?

 

[Jeltz]

[soapbox]
It could be done, if there was reform of the commons with a vastly reduced number of MP's to take effect at the general election after the next one then they would all have to be re-selected and it would give the opportunity for better candidates to be considered. I think that if top academics and business leaders put their hat in the ring for their chosen party then the electorate of those parties would want them in place.

As regards shareholding, given that they may only be in position for 4 or 5 years I think it would be unreasonable to require people to sell off all their investments.

Personally I'm a Tory voter, but I'm not a fan of any of the political parties I just dislike Labour and the Lib Dems more . Only something like 6 times since the 2nd world war has any government managed to balance the books i.e. achieved a budget surplus rather than deficit. Successive governments have sold us a lifestyle that we can't afford based on borrowed money because they want to be popular and re-elected. If every year you overspent and ran up a larger and larger overdraft then your bank would be saying that its rather worrying but that's exactly what our governments (whatever party) have been doing for decades, on our behalf, and now the national debt is around £1.25 trillion.

As a parent I think its a shameful legacy that our generation is passing this debt on to our children (and probably their children) to deal with. That is why I wish we had the best of the best, i.e. the visionaries, doing the job then we might just have a chance of sorting ourselves out rather than bankrupting future generations.

[/soapbox]

 

[bobsbeer]

I just find it amusing watching all the politicians squirming. My local MP has pledged to give his pay rise to charity. And while I applaud his generosity. I'm not that naive to think he is doing this to placate his charitable conscience. No he is doing it because it looks super crass and embarrassing that they are seen to be more deserving than the rest of the public servants who also do a very important role within society. I would love to have my pay decided by the same group. Maybe we could all have fair pay. I'm sure they deserve a pay rise. I'm sure the pay review body decided on the merits and complexity of the role. And came up with a fair remuneration based on the job they are being asked to perform. But that is where the unfairness comes in. My pay is not being determined on the same basis. It is based supposedly on what the Chancellor deems what the country can afford. A noble gesture. Well done Mr Osbourne. Strange that principal doesn't apply to other areas. Like the energy companies. Who raise prices based on commercial factors. I bet the CEO of British Gas hasn't had a pay freeze for 3 years and then a 1% pay rise.

There is the problem. If we want decent public services, an NHS etc we need to pay for them. In the same way we are forced to pay for energy, food etc. That may be unpopular, but why are MP's any more deserving than teachers, nurses, social workers or road mending gangs. They are all doing a bloody good job in extreme circumstances, and being forced to 'do more for less'. Shame that management speak slogan isn't applied universally. Then we might all be in this together after all.

 

[jonewer]

I agree totally with the people who are in favour of well paid MP's, in order to attract the kind of people who would hold top roles in business and the academic world you need a reward system which is appropriate, however at the moment MP's earn less than a head teacher or doctor etc. which is hardly the kind of package that would attract someone who would otherwise be an Oxford don or on the board of ICI. No disrespect to teachers and doctors but they aren't running the country, and this job should be done by the best possible people.

I also think we have too many MP's and could easily halve the numbers. I would like to see a system where MP's are paid at rates equivalent to board members of multinational companies but with very few expenses. If they all had 1st class rail travel or a car and driver and government provided accommodation when they are in Westminster so that expenses would be minimised and there would be none of this 2nd homes allowance rubbish.

They arent ruining it either

TBH, comparing an MP to a doctor is ridiculous. Medicine is a profession that takes years of training and has direct and serious consequences and responsibilities. As does nursing. Or being a police officer. Or a soldier. Or an intelligence analyst. And so on.

On the other hand, you don't even need to be able to read a Janet & John book to be an MP.

There are dozens of potential applicants for each post. Hell, an MP can simply refuse to show up at work at all with no fear of losing their job (viz Gordon Brown who has barely attended the commons at all for 3 whole years). Half their job is done by the EU in any case and they generally vote whatever way their whips tell them to.

A six year old could quite literally be a back-bencher.

I agree that we need to halve the number of MP's - and reduce the Lords by about 80% - and the rest of what you say in the second paragraph, but with the caveat that they are held to the highest possible standards of conduct of any public office, including an extensive period after they cease to hold office.

I would also like to say this - You now have the measure of all three of the main parties. You know their worth. Yet almost 80% of the electorate are set to vote for them again. And if you vote for them again then you know we will simply get more of the same. Dont vote for them! I plead with you for the sake of the common good and the good of the country I'm sure we all love, to vote for someone, anyone, but the candidates of the main three parties.

 

[Jeltz]

A six year old could quite literally be a back-bencher.

Yeah totally, running a weekly surgery to meet with disgruntled people, many of whom will happily tell you they hate you is an ideal role for a 6 year old Really the lack of understanding of why their role is so important is part of the problem!

For example, last year I called upon the services of our MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is possibly the poshest man on the planet. I was surprised to find that he was helpful, knowledgeable and gave me, and my neighbours, the information needed to take on the local authority he also made representations to the LA on our behalf but it was a local issue planning issue (a travellers camp on the site of an old school) so not really his responsibility. Anyway we won and I think his involvement was vital. Now if the council had, had its way we would have a load of caravans and travellers about 200 yards from our house. The value of out houses would be lowered and we suspected that there would also have been an impact on out quality of life. It was important to our community that we had somebody to turn to who represents us.

Oh and the word literally in that sentence is incorrect, too :P

 

[scott-ayling]

The Company i work for have made record profits the last few years and still only had between 1 & 2 % pay rise. They keep coming out with the need to stay compeiditive ********. When i first started in the company 10 years ago they strived to be a 10% profit company this year loking like hitting nearly 20% profit and i bet next year will be 1 or 2 % rise. But atleast we are getting a rise and have a job. The wife works for the council and hasn't had a rise in 4 years.

 

[graysalchemy]

Really the lack of understanding of why their role is so important is part of the problem!

I think you hit the nail on the head there Nic. If we don't have good strong back benchers (and opposition) who are able to keep a check on the cabinet then they will bulldoze through all their agendas. Parliament is meant to be representative of the whole community and not just a select few and their cronies, which we have had for the last 20-30 years.

That is why instead of criticising our politicians, we should be encouraging and voting for the very best people to do the job, if not we will have another 30 years of the boom and bust and an even greater deficit. They too should carry out their part and show what they are actually achieving and not just going on endless sound byte and photo opportunities to make sure they get voted in next time around.

 

[Aleman]

I think the unfortunate thing is that we only get professional politicians put forward as candidates nowadays, the time of Benn, Skinner and Powell is long gone.

24 of the 27 cabinet members are multimillionaires

Why are the current government so keen to have a referendum on the Scottish issue? I could be cynical and say the reason they haven't really done a media campaign against is due to the fact that a lot of labour MP's would no longer have Westminster Seats :whistle: :whistle:

I will be honest and say that the MP's are not necessarily the real seat of power or the cause of the major issues, but the fault lies with the incompetence of the senior civil servants. Those guys could not run a **** up in a brewery. I fail to see how difficult it is to implement a computer system handling benefit claims country wide . . . and worse still cancel it having cost the tax payer billions . . . Oh Yes I do, they outsourced the civil service software development teams to EDS, CAPITA et al . . .who then sacked all the experienced developers and outsourced to India. If a British company comes along to compete in the market . . .EDS/CAPITA simply wait until they have a small market share . . . and then buy them . . .So we have a 'competitive market' which drives costs down . . . I only see them rising