Doesn't Add Up

[sir.prize]

New proposals for MP’s salary increases being unveiled are expected to see a 12% rise from the current level of £66,000 up to £75,000 in 2015.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority chief Sir Ian Kennedy is likely to argue that overall the new package will only be a few hundred thousand pounds a year more costly for the public purse. That is an increase of £9,000 each.
With 650 MPs x £9,000 = £5,850,000.
That is almost six million pounds – somewhat more than a few hundred thousand.
Silly man.

How do these people become MPs and even get knighthoods?

[Gromit]

Well....let's put it like this:

How many British workers have agreed a pay freeze to keep their jobs?

[Sqad]

Gromit

\\\\How many British workers have agreed a pay freeze to keep their jobs?\\\

The MP's have had a "pay freeze" for the past 10 years...which public sector would stand for that?

[sandyRoe]

Aren't they there to serve their constituents? And don't the best traditions of public service accept an element of sacrifice?
A 10 year pay freeze, duck houses and moat dredging apart, is something our MPs should accept with stoic fortitude.

[LazyGun]

If you want to monitor the performance of your MP, there is already a facility to do that.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Someone else has made the point that IPSA was an independent body set up in the wake of the expenses scandal with the express intention of auditing MPs expenses more effectively and coming to a decision on MPs pay, taking away the right of parliament to vote on their own pay - a good thing.

The proposal as it stands is a mixed package - a pay rise, coupled with a removal of some expenditure previously reclaimable on expenses, doing away with the final salary pension package, and no more "golden goodbyes" for MPs ousted in an election. All well and good, as far as it goes.

The question comes boils down to 2 things; Will democracy be enhanced by giving MPs a larger salary? Will we get a better class of MP as a consequence of offering a larger salary?. I think the answer is a resounding "No" on both counts. Those people interested in becoming an MP to form the pool of available candidates is unlikely to be significantly enhanced as a consequence of a salary rise. People enter politics to get their hands on the levers of power, to fulfill ideological motives. Money is a secondary consideration.

We have too many MPs. We have too many Lords. Do something about reducing the numbers of both, then you can talk about enhancing the salary.

In a time of austerity, when time and time again we are told that "we are all in it together" - that we are all sharing the pain equally - when public sector pay freezes mean effective pay cuts due to inflation, when private sector employees are suffering in the same fashion; when the truly needy are being disadvantaged by the benefit cuts being introduced; when the message we have been given ever since the coalition came to power was that the economy dictated that we cut our spending, the idea that you offer a double- digit pay rise to a bunch of privileged elitists sitting in Westminster, cosseted from many of the harsh realities of life is frankly absurd. IPSA should think again about the package they wish to implement, and when they wish to implement it......

[aelmpvw]

isn't the £9,000 rise roughly comparable to the yearly wage of a minimum wage earner?

[Sqad]

LazyGun

Again a full and informative answer but i revert back to my original post:

\\\\How many of you ABERs would turn down a 10% pay rise, whatever the "economic climate?" \\\

You have highlighted the theoretical and emotive aspect of the topic, but i am asking for the pragmatic view.

I am already late for my Club, but will hurry back to receive further comments.

[Octavius]

There was an MP on the radio this morning saying he disagrees with it and will give it to charity. I can't remember his name.

Depending on the charity (mums new car etc) that sounds fairly munificent.

[LazyGun]

@Sqad - Its a fair point. Would I turn down a 10% pay rise? In my current and previous lines of work, no, since as long as I can remember within my own career a pay rise of that magnitude has been linked to either promotion or performance, as monitored by a review etc.

Hypothetically, were I an MP, then accepting such a pay rise,particularly during an extended period of national economic austery would be an entirely different matter. I would have become an MP because I was motivated by the desire to promote and actively engage in pushing my own political agenda, born out of a desire to help people. In those circumstances, I believe I would turn down the pay rise, not least because I would take the view that to take it would be to insult my own constituents and because it will be seen by many as unjustly trousering taxpayer funds.....

[Gromit]

// The MP's have had a "pay freeze" for the past 10 years // Really?

April 2003 £56,358
April 2004 £57,485
April 2005 £59,095
April 2006 £59,686
Nov 2006 £60,277
Apr 2007 £61,1811
Nov 2007 £61,82027
Apr 2008 £63,291
Apr 2009 £64,766
April 2010 £65,738

In 2011, due to the expenses scandal they agreed to keep them at 2010 levels for two years pending a review.

That looks like a moderate annual rise to me. (Two rises some years).

During the same period, their allowance for staff (often a spouse or relative) went from £75,00 to £115,000

[ludwig]

I like gromit's list of reforms. The only thing I'd add is that we could probably get rid of a few of them altogether, in line with the general push for public sector downsizing that they've decided is necessary.

[Gromit]

Ludwig,
I agree with that too.
The current number of parliamentary seats (655ish) was set in 1832 when communication with an MP and with Parliament was a great deal more difficult.

With the internet, email, texting, and even television, an MP could look after more than the present 92,000 people.

[andy-hughes]

I always had total admiration for Coventry MP Dave Nellist, who took the equivalent of salary for a skilled worker in his constituency, approx 40% of an MP's salary at the time - and donated the rest to the Labour movement, and to charity.

IF MP's were paid on that basis we might attract the proverbial 'right level of candidate' as the fat cats say about baking and finance posts - and do away with the gross sense of entitlement that attaches itself to the majority of MP's from the day they are elected.

[Quizmonster]

Sqad, I'm sure you must remember Nye Bevan's words in the late 1940s in response to someone who asked him, "How did you manage to persuade doctors to stop fighting against the creation of the NHS?"
These words were, "I stuffed their mouths with gold!"
Like lawyers, doctors have never been backward in coming forward when hard cash is on the line!

[youngmafbog]

Damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I also rather like Gromits list, and ludwigs addition though

[Sqad]

LaZyGun...well done, at least you have answered my question and " stood up to be counted" ...the only ABER to do so and I do believe you.

Gromit still prevaricates although has produced " evidence" to point out my error in the statement of an MP pay freeze over the last decade. My mistake Gromit.

I do not see why one cannot have a " decent salary" whilst still doing a good job in the public sector.......a decent salary commisurate with ones training, experience and position in society and that would mean more than a 10% increase in salary.
In a fickle society one can be the " blue eyed boy" one minute and then voted out in the following election.

I don't want my Barrister to be " one of us" I don,t want my Neurosurgeon to be " one of us" I want him to be good at his job and paid accordingly.

Give the MP,s a competitive salary and yes I agree with Gromit, less expenses and les MP's and botox to him being " one of us".

[Gromit]

// Gromit still prevaricates although has produced " evidence" to point out my error... //

I did not answer your question, because it was a stupid hypothetical one.

// How many of you ABERs would turn down a 10% pay rise, whatever the "economic climate?" //

I worked for a private company and they were doing very well, I would accept a 10% pay rise. If I worked for a private company and they were doing badly, I would accept a pay freeze.

If I were a public servant (as MPs are) and I had enforced a pay freeze on other Public Servants, I would not accept one myself.

ABers are not public servants representing us all. MPs are in a unique position in that they enforce pay restraint on many millions of public sector workers. To then take a rise far above inflation themselves is plain WRONG.

[Gromit]

sqad

// Gromit... has produced "evidence" //

Not sure why that is in quotes. If you are doubting its validity, here is the source...

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m05.pdf

[LazyGun]

As a point of information - The package of measures announced by IPSA today forms part of a public consultation package which runs until 20th October 2013, and those responses are very likely to have at least some impact upon the proposals.

If you feel strongly enough on this issue to comment here, perhaps you might also like to let IPSA know your feelings?

These are the package of measures IPSA is recommending, put forward for public consultation;

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Documents/9.%20MPs%27%20Pay%20and%20Pensions%20-%20A%20New%20Package%20-%20July%202013.pdf

Contact details for letting IPSA know your thoughts...
Through their website;
http://www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/
Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/mppayandpension
By Email;
[email protected]

or by post;
IPSA
7th floor
Portland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5BH

I most certainly will be contacting them with my opinion! :)

[Sqad]

Gromit.....no! no! Nothing sinister in the "quotes"

OK Gromit...at last.......you wouldn't accept a pay rise. Fair enough, that is all I asked.

I would and I bet that a few million workers would also do the same given the choice.