ChatterBank0 min ago
Mps Pay Rise
It has been suggested that MPs should have a thirty two percent pay rise,bless them , They deserve every penny of it .They all work very hard for us. They are not selfish ,and they only want to look after the plebs.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BayBoy1. 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.
LazyGun...your second paragraph.......a pay rise is necessarily given in the hope of increasing production, as there are many other factors..e.g increasing applications, keeping up with the cost of living, so your argument about not increasing productivity doesn't hold water...ask the Unions or perhaps the GP.s who got a pay rise AND decrease in productivity.
\\\\I see no justification at all for increasing their salary.\\\
You have repeated that and we have got the message.
One should not have to rely on "totting up the perks" to get a competitive salary and in my opinion the salary is only made competitive by the addition of these perks which are continually sniped at by the public.
LG...there are opposite views on MP's pay.
\\\\I see no justification at all for increasing their salary.\\\
You have repeated that and we have got the message.
One should not have to rely on "totting up the perks" to get a competitive salary and in my opinion the salary is only made competitive by the addition of these perks which are continually sniped at by the public.
LG...there are opposite views on MP's pay.
Didn't an independent review recommend years ago that MPs' salary should be significantly higher and they aligned it with other Public Sector jobs e.g. Headteachers
When those recommendations were ignored for political reasons was when the 'nudge nudge wink wink' approach to expenses really kicked in.
Until we come up with a better system, our democracy relies on having MPs who are a good mix of capable people (not just the rich who don't care about the salary) and for that we need to be paying an appropriate amount and cleaning up the issues around the funding of their offices by putting them on the same footing as any reputable, well run business.
I doubt if a senior manager in any large, well run organisation setting up a branch office would be allowed to take the allocated budget and just rent his own spare room and pay his wife to work in there.
When those recommendations were ignored for political reasons was when the 'nudge nudge wink wink' approach to expenses really kicked in.
Until we come up with a better system, our democracy relies on having MPs who are a good mix of capable people (not just the rich who don't care about the salary) and for that we need to be paying an appropriate amount and cleaning up the issues around the funding of their offices by putting them on the same footing as any reputable, well run business.
I doubt if a senior manager in any large, well run organisation setting up a branch office would be allowed to take the allocated budget and just rent his own spare room and pay his wife to work in there.
@Sqad Yes, there are different opinions, and no one is stopping you expressing them, surely?
Still no one has really answered my question, which is, why do you want to pay them substantially more? 30% or so? Where are these people who are going to be qualitatively better representatives of their constituency?And how are existing MPs going to become qualitatively better by 30%?
Its not even as if we have a shortage of candidates - I do not recall seeing any vacant seats in the house...
Please show me how the existing salary, with all its commensurate perks, allowances expenses, free travel, final salary pension scheme, is deterring those people of ability within the general public from stepping forward? And this is just for MPs - ministers and cabinet ministers get an extra salary and additional perks.
Reality is - People do not go into politics principally because of the remuneration - they enter it for prestige, for power, for the desire to help people, or change society, or to promote a cause or set of beliefs they hold dear. I see no reason to offer them substantively bigger salaries.
The only way I could see that happening was if they devoted their time entirely to being an MP; If they were to cease claiming allowances, if they opened up assistant/ PA roles to general applications, rather than just appointing a spouse/child, if they implemented a right of recall, and if they were to cut their numbers significantly.
Still, its all academic for now at least; IPSA have already stated that MPs salary will be subject to the same public sector pay cap as everyone else, for at least the next couple of years, which is good :)
Still no one has really answered my question, which is, why do you want to pay them substantially more? 30% or so? Where are these people who are going to be qualitatively better representatives of their constituency?And how are existing MPs going to become qualitatively better by 30%?
Its not even as if we have a shortage of candidates - I do not recall seeing any vacant seats in the house...
Please show me how the existing salary, with all its commensurate perks, allowances expenses, free travel, final salary pension scheme, is deterring those people of ability within the general public from stepping forward? And this is just for MPs - ministers and cabinet ministers get an extra salary and additional perks.
Reality is - People do not go into politics principally because of the remuneration - they enter it for prestige, for power, for the desire to help people, or change society, or to promote a cause or set of beliefs they hold dear. I see no reason to offer them substantively bigger salaries.
The only way I could see that happening was if they devoted their time entirely to being an MP; If they were to cease claiming allowances, if they opened up assistant/ PA roles to general applications, rather than just appointing a spouse/child, if they implemented a right of recall, and if they were to cut their numbers significantly.
Still, its all academic for now at least; IPSA have already stated that MPs salary will be subject to the same public sector pay cap as everyone else, for at least the next couple of years, which is good :)
LG..I feel that we are going to go around in circles here;-)
In answer to your repeated question, I thought that i had answered it by suggesting that the pay rise was not to improve quality or applicants but to make the present incumbent's pay competitive. You say it is and i say it isn't. Two differing opinions.
\\\\Its not even as if we have a shortage of candidates - I do not recall seeing any vacant seats in the house... \\\
Not all "candidates" get to sit in the house.....only the winner.
Two differing opinions.
In answer to your repeated question, I thought that i had answered it by suggesting that the pay rise was not to improve quality or applicants but to make the present incumbent's pay competitive. You say it is and i say it isn't. Two differing opinions.
\\\\Its not even as if we have a shortage of candidates - I do not recall seeing any vacant seats in the house... \\\
Not all "candidates" get to sit in the house.....only the winner.
Two differing opinions.
Sure, every profession I can think of will have salary envy of another profession. You will often hear talk of equality of roles within disparate professions. Heck , as I sure you probably had personal experience of Sqad, you will get one specialism arguing they are worth more than another. Surgeons, invariably, think they are worth the most :) Law of nature, that.
Just because there is salary envy does not mean that the salary of those envious should be adjusted upwards though.
The real sign that the remuneration for a job is undervalued is a dearth of candidates and unfulfilled posts - I see no evidence of that amongst MPs.
In fact, I think many of them are just taking the proverbial, and for those in safe seats especially, its pretty much money for old rope.
They get plenty right now. Only if they substantially improved the quality and quantity of their work would they even begin to merit a pay rise, and only then if they reformed the allowances and pension scheme.
Just because there is salary envy does not mean that the salary of those envious should be adjusted upwards though.
The real sign that the remuneration for a job is undervalued is a dearth of candidates and unfulfilled posts - I see no evidence of that amongst MPs.
In fact, I think many of them are just taking the proverbial, and for those in safe seats especially, its pretty much money for old rope.
They get plenty right now. Only if they substantially improved the quality and quantity of their work would they even begin to merit a pay rise, and only then if they reformed the allowances and pension scheme.
LazyGun....nobody is talking about envy or of a job being undervalued......the argument is about whether the salary of the MP's is competitive compared with various pointers.
As I have said......some say yes and some say no.
You last paragraph.......quantity and quality of work.....that is difficult to gauge and parameters difficult to establish.
As I have said......some say yes and some say no.
You last paragraph.......quantity and quality of work.....that is difficult to gauge and parameters difficult to establish.
LG
to answer your question about justification for bigger salary
may i reiterate my point from 14.07
/Didn't an independent review recommend years ago that MPs' salary should be significantly higher and they aligned it with other Public Sector jobs e.g. Headteachers?
When those recommendations were ignored for political reasons was when the 'nudge nudge wink wink' approach to expenses really kicked in. /
to answer your question about justification for bigger salary
may i reiterate my point from 14.07
/Didn't an independent review recommend years ago that MPs' salary should be significantly higher and they aligned it with other Public Sector jobs e.g. Headteachers?
When those recommendations were ignored for political reasons was when the 'nudge nudge wink wink' approach to expenses really kicked in. /
-- answer removed --
Zeuhl (belatedly), why would an MP get as much as a headteacher? Their job is a lot more junior, and a lot less useful to society. A 25-year-old MP should get as much as a 25-year-old teacher - not a head.
The idea of an MP not having other jobs is a good one, though I don't know eactly how you'd handle the possibility of one of them writing his memoirs, or a novel, or a newspaper column.
The idea of an MP not having other jobs is a good one, though I don't know eactly how you'd handle the possibility of one of them writing his memoirs, or a novel, or a newspaper column.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
News8 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Current Affairs28 mins ago
