Donate SIGN UP

MP's why don't they get it?

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 16:09 Fri 05th Mar 2010 | News
31 Answers
OK 1.5% rise is another £2-3m we spend on the USOS, not much in the scheme of things I agree. Why do they not understand how much the public are mightily pi55ed off with these leeches. If any of them had an ounce of sense they'd halt their systematic plunder of public money! Why don't they get it?


1 to 20 of 31rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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.
I don't object to them getting a fair wage for the job, and 1.5% doesn't seem an excessive rise. It's the expenses that need drastic tightening up. Again, a second home is necessary to those living beyond the M25, as they have to serve both their constituencies and Westminster. I don't call that plundering public money. It's the duck islands that stick in my throat, so to speak.
Question Author
Yes I understand jno, the whole exes thing. What I mean is that given the whole public revulsion in recent times have they not got the sense to waive a rise this year? a small gesture, perhaps but really they just don't get it do they?
I agree. many people won't be getting any payrise this year, it would have been a gesture of some understanding of the people they are supposed to be representing
They probably do "get it" but as they couldn't really give a stuff about us peasants- choose to ignore it.
I think that £65000 a year for an MP is only acceptable if there are "perks" which there were until recently..........MP.s expenses.

If the expenses are removed then the MP.s need more than £65000 and a 1.5% rise is not exceptional.

Mick McGahey, Jack Jones and other Union "big hitters" would have got them more than 1.5%
I agree that they should earn more than 65k a year. A perk is being allowed to have a second home.....not a home for your fluffing ducks.
I think £65k for a basic back bencher should be more than sufficient remuneration without perks. But legitimate expenses should be honoured.

Trouble is that if MPs waived their rise every time someone somewhere didn't get one, they'd never have a rise. If an independent body is seen to be setting a fair rate, then that is probably the best one can hope for. 1.5% is more than I'm getting, but isn't massive against the admitted to inflation figure.
Which is the biggest pay rise, 1.5 % of £12,500 or 1.5 % of £65,000 ?
As a percentage that retains accepted differentials, or as a simple figure that encourages eroding them ?
"Why do they not understand how much the public are mightily pi55ed off "
I'm sure they do: they just couldn't give a toss, though.
They should get a fair salary and expenses. No perks. As for second homes - there are plenty of unnocupied office premises in the city that could be made into standard appartments for MP's who have to travel over a certain distance into the city. And I agree with chelle, they should not have any pay rise this year as a token to the people they have betrayed in the past.

I would class £65,000 as a very fair salary.
they don't get it, because the majority have never lived in the real world.

and don't let's forget that those who are clinging on till the general election and then will stand down, will get another payment to aid their resettlement into a new life without MP's expenses. will this madness never end?
My post invisible to you rojash? ;-)
It would be much better and fairer if everybody got a £10 or £20 rise . In this country the rich are getting much richer and the poor will soon be starving ?
LOL at BOO. Ratty again today, eh? ;o)
Haha, no not really, just wondered why someone said exactly the same as me.
Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery BOO :o)
-- answer removed --
Zeuhl. A two bedroomed apartment would suffice in my opinion. Lots of people have to spend a lot of time away from home for work purposes. They don't have the opportunity to take their family with them. Apart from that, children have to go to school don't they. A small two bedroomed furnished apartment should be good enough!
Not so ASSAM. A flat rise for all eventually puts everyone on the same wage (save for an insignificant amount). A percentage rise retains the same benefits everyone already has.

A rather simplified example.

Person A is paid £12,000, and is able to live a lifestyle of level, say, X
Person B is paid £24,000, and is able to live a lifestyle of level, say, 2X

Over a long period of time inflation takes it's toll and prices rise, say 5000%

Person A is paid and extra £600,000 making £612,000, but because of inflation they can still only live a lifestyle of level X

If Person B is forced to accept the same £600,000 then they get £624,000, and their standard of living has dropped to just 1.02 X. Basically it's fallen through the floor for them. They are now little better off than person A.

But of Person B is given the same percentage rise then they get an extra £1,200,000 making £1,224,000, and taking inflation into account they retain their original lifestyle of level 2X.

The figures are larger for person B, but the value to them is the same.

Differentials are a different subject/argument to pay rises.

1 to 20 of 31rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

MP's why don't they get it?

Answer Question >>