News1 min ago
Not Us Guv, We Didnt Vote For It !
20 Answers
no I bet you didnt, and I'll also bet you didnt go out of your way to let IPSA know that you should be getting it either !!!
http://
"MPs have no way to prevent the rise coming into force after the next general election - unless they change the law set up in the wake of the expenses scandal to stop them setting their own pay."
errrm...so there is a way then
thats ok...change the laws then, enough other laws get changed/brought/foisted on us in to suit, so do the same here
to say its "forced" on them is absolutely ludicrous at best
lets see just how "all in it together" we really are then shall we
http://
"MPs have no way to prevent the rise coming into force after the next general election - unless they change the law set up in the wake of the expenses scandal to stop them setting their own pay."
errrm...so there is a way then
thats ok...change the laws then, enough other laws get changed/brought/foisted on us in to suit, so do the same here
to say its "forced" on them is absolutely ludicrous at best
lets see just how "all in it together" we really are then shall we
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The 11% figure is a bit misleading since it is really around 2% pa. MPs' salaries were set at around £67000 pa in 2010 and I understand they have remained at this level and won't change under the IPSA proposal until 2015. In addition the proposed increase is part of a package which would reduce their pensions (although these were excessively generous).
Some have said they will turn down the increase, but I don't see why they should feel guilty about it taking it if they have worked hard and represented their constituents. I am sure most could earn at least as much outside politics.
The salaries may be above the UK average but they are below those of headteachers, doctors, many solicitors and accountants, and even some train drivers.
The IPSA process was put in place to ensure the decision on MPs' pay was taken by an independent body. I can't see the point of overturning the result. If we overturn it what would be done? Okay we could freeze MP's salaries for ever or cut them - but that could mean only the 'already rich' would want to be MPs.
If you don't think your MP is providing value for money you can always vote them out before the IPSA increase comes into effect after the next election.
Some have said they will turn down the increase, but I don't see why they should feel guilty about it taking it if they have worked hard and represented their constituents. I am sure most could earn at least as much outside politics.
The salaries may be above the UK average but they are below those of headteachers, doctors, many solicitors and accountants, and even some train drivers.
The IPSA process was put in place to ensure the decision on MPs' pay was taken by an independent body. I can't see the point of overturning the result. If we overturn it what would be done? Okay we could freeze MP's salaries for ever or cut them - but that could mean only the 'already rich' would want to be MPs.
If you don't think your MP is providing value for money you can always vote them out before the IPSA increase comes into effect after the next election.
I am disappointed that IPSA are continuing down this route.No other public servant is being considered for a back-dated cost of living rise, and to argue that by giving them more money in salary will prevent abuse of the expenses system sounds like it is rewarding fraud, to me.
Nor do I quite understand this argument that by offering bigger salaries that will balance out the number of rich people in parliament. When talking about the salaries of MPs, and salary comparisons, people always, always forget to factor in the other elements of the remuneration package - the very generous expenses schemes, the free travel, the very generous pension, the estimated 100K a year in addition to their 65K salary they get to cover office expenses, the fact that the vast majority of MPs hire family members or spouses as assistants and pay them generous salaries out of the public purse - MPs like Nadine Dorries, for instance, who has hired both her daughters as her office manager at salaries of 45K a year.
This is all just for being a bog-standard MP - if you are appointed a minister you get an additional salary, so a cabinet minister will be getting, on top of their 65K a year salary, their all-encompassing expenses and generous pension and 100K a year office allowance, an additional 100K a year or so.
Let them introduce a performance related element to their pay first - how many sittings of the HoC do they attend. How quick are they to respond to a constituents issues. Lets open up the hiring and firing practices of MPs for their assistants first, so we are not funnelling more tax-payers money into their pockets.Lets see a change in their pension arrangements to better reflect the current economic realities.
Then and only then should they be considered for a pay rise.
Nor do I quite understand this argument that by offering bigger salaries that will balance out the number of rich people in parliament. When talking about the salaries of MPs, and salary comparisons, people always, always forget to factor in the other elements of the remuneration package - the very generous expenses schemes, the free travel, the very generous pension, the estimated 100K a year in addition to their 65K salary they get to cover office expenses, the fact that the vast majority of MPs hire family members or spouses as assistants and pay them generous salaries out of the public purse - MPs like Nadine Dorries, for instance, who has hired both her daughters as her office manager at salaries of 45K a year.
This is all just for being a bog-standard MP - if you are appointed a minister you get an additional salary, so a cabinet minister will be getting, on top of their 65K a year salary, their all-encompassing expenses and generous pension and 100K a year office allowance, an additional 100K a year or so.
Let them introduce a performance related element to their pay first - how many sittings of the HoC do they attend. How quick are they to respond to a constituents issues. Lets open up the hiring and firing practices of MPs for their assistants first, so we are not funnelling more tax-payers money into their pockets.Lets see a change in their pension arrangements to better reflect the current economic realities.
Then and only then should they be considered for a pay rise.
"Let them introduce a performance related element "
exactly...just like GP's etc , we should be able to give them "marks" , how many times they show , how long in the chamber, how often they speak etc etc,
if they expect other public bodies/workers etc to be open to the same kind of scrutiny then so should they, perhaps even more scrutiny as they are the say as I do mob and in theory should be setting the example for the rest of us to follow
exactly...just like GP's etc , we should be able to give them "marks" , how many times they show , how long in the chamber, how often they speak etc etc,
if they expect other public bodies/workers etc to be open to the same kind of scrutiny then so should they, perhaps even more scrutiny as they are the say as I do mob and in theory should be setting the example for the rest of us to follow
// What an impressive gesture it would be if all MPs were to say "Taking into consideration these times of financial austerity, we the MPs of the UK refuse to accept our pay rise".
Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window? //
They should not have the opportunity of acceptance or refusal, please tell me of any other organization who can set their own salary.
WR.
Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window? //
They should not have the opportunity of acceptance or refusal, please tell me of any other organization who can set their own salary.
WR.
They are underpaid in the first place. Across the Channel , deputies in the National Assembly are paid 162,144 euros a year (£136,000). Being France, there is a 'black cashbox' containing 150 million euros which deputies share. The sharing arrangements mean that different deputies get different amounts, but Paiecheck, a French website, says that some have drawn 40,000 euros a month from it ! I do not suggest we have the black cashbox here.
If it's a patriotic thing, then being in the CPS or the Civil Service is a patriotic thing !
If it's a way to get rich, it is neither an obvious or successful one. How many MPs have got rich as a consequence ? Tony Blair has, but anyone who has been Prime Minister for years is bound to attract big money. Ordinary MPs have taken years to get elected, all for nothing, just to get a salary which is less than a GP's and which your typical partner in a solicitors' or accountants' would think laughable.
If it's a way to get rich, it is neither an obvious or successful one. How many MPs have got rich as a consequence ? Tony Blair has, but anyone who has been Prime Minister for years is bound to attract big money. Ordinary MPs have taken years to get elected, all for nothing, just to get a salary which is less than a GP's and which your typical partner in a solicitors' or accountants' would think laughable.
Again - lets not forget the generous pension. The very generous expenses package. The 100K a year office allowance. The employment of family members as assistants @ 45K a year. The freebie travels. Headteachers do not get this package, nor the ability to use their position to network for their own benefit. Nor do accountants, or solicitors, or lawyers, or scientists or whatever. MPs have a fantastic remuneration package stacked up against any "comparable" role you care to mention. And if they want to make money, if they are tired of all the stick - go back to whatever it was they were doing before- simples!
This is just for being a constituency MP. If you are a minister, you will be getting an additional 100K year.
Why are we comparing salaries with those in France, or Germany? Are we in a race to the top now? Should we be striving to ensure that our MPs are the best paid of all MPs?
You become an MP not to make money but to make a difference. Hopefully because you are passionate and committed. In that sense, the money they get should make no difference, but to try and suggest that MPs are poorly paid or insufficiently remunerated for what they do is a nonsense. Those that want to become MPs, those that have the ability and the determination and the thick skin to become an MP right now will be exactly the same cohort even if the salary was raised, no difference.
I can see plenty of rationalisations and justifications, but none are compelling. And especially in an "Age of Austerity" when we are "All in this together", a pay rise like this is just a slap in the face of the electorate.
This is just for being a constituency MP. If you are a minister, you will be getting an additional 100K year.
Why are we comparing salaries with those in France, or Germany? Are we in a race to the top now? Should we be striving to ensure that our MPs are the best paid of all MPs?
You become an MP not to make money but to make a difference. Hopefully because you are passionate and committed. In that sense, the money they get should make no difference, but to try and suggest that MPs are poorly paid or insufficiently remunerated for what they do is a nonsense. Those that want to become MPs, those that have the ability and the determination and the thick skin to become an MP right now will be exactly the same cohort even if the salary was raised, no difference.
I can see plenty of rationalisations and justifications, but none are compelling. And especially in an "Age of Austerity" when we are "All in this together", a pay rise like this is just a slap in the face of the electorate.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.