MPs call for '32% salary increase'

Every newspaper seems to be running with misleading and provocative headlines using words like 'want' and 'demand', glossing over the fact that it was just a survey. Make it sound like all the MPs are actively trying to get this change pushed through, bloody idiots.
 
WrathOfAchilles said:
To someone who earns an average salary £66k may seem like a lot. Personally as someone who earns more than that as an IT Consultant working 35 hour weeks I think £66k for a high pressure job with 60 hour weeks isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if it was £66k and nothing else, but it's already been pointed out in this thread that they get a lot more than that when you include expenses, not to mention their holidays and pensions.

This survey is part of a year-long report which will also ask members of the public how they feel about MP renumeration.

I'd reserve judgement until the report is published.
 
For a high responsibility position in the centre of London, £66k + expenses/bonus isn't a huge amount really.
I say give them £100k but scrap their expenses.
 
If they find the remuneration package too small; they could always go find a better higher paid job couldn't they?

That's what the center runs around telling disgruntled staff on a daily basis so as public servants I fail see why they are any different.
 
WrathOfAchilles said:
To someone who earns an average salary £66k may seem like a lot. Personally as someone who earns more than that as an IT Consultant working 35 hour weeks I think £66k for a high pressure job with 60 hour weeks isn't enough.
Click to expand...

How is it high pressure? Yes I am sure a lot have to make some big decisions but the majority are just back bench sheep. They even have enough spare time on their hands to have a vacation in the jungle lol

Every day we are told we must find cuts here and there, yet they "think" they deserve 30% pay increase. Is this a performance related bonus?

When was the last time you heard of an MP doing some good?
 
It can't be performance related; and it can't be due to comparison to the private sector either there is no real benchmark. I don't believe it is high pressure either, cabinet members get money for that role. Apart from that, look at the chamber half the time it's completely devoid of politicians.

Public service is underpaid; they just have to get with the script really.
 
D1TMY.jpg


moderately relevant, i realy just wanted to find a thread to post it :P
 
dannyjo22 said:
How about paying them an amount depending on the cost of living at the place they represent, just how they want to pay benefits.
Click to expand...

Oddly that's exactly what they wanted to do with all the staff below them as well; except it backfired a bit when the Whitehall study showed they would need to on average increase pay as oppose to lower it.

Oddly regional pay in the Civil Service has now been essentially shelved.

Obviously not the outcome they were looking for, which is a shame they seemed quite convinced of the benefits beforehand of other "Good modern employers".

Such as the going rate of pay.

;)
 
Skidder said:
If they were better paid, more capable people might go into politics.
Click to expand...

Better paid in comparison to what though?

I remain convinced that public service should remain a vocation.

Party politics and the internal machinery are much more to blame for the quality of politicians than the Member's pay.

Public bodies are always going to have Chief Exec's with higher pay than parliament; representation is service and executive arms are in more direct competition with the private sector.

People, politicians or Tory commentators, forget this when balking at 'quangos'.
 
They should be higher paid.

Unfortunately most of the British public are thick and can't stand the thought of people doing very important jobs in the public eye getting paid well with public money. So for political reasons the system was set up so they had a lower than adequate headline figure as a salary to appease the public whilst giving them generous expenses to make up for the shortfall. That then lead to that latter system being abused.

If we as a society could just accept they should be paid a higher wage, they could then have a modest and strict expenses system but as I said, politicians are too scared of the Tabloids saying stuff like "MPs on £80k a year whilst a nurse only gets £30k it's not fair etc etc".
 
I don't think they should be paid higher, the much abused expenses system should be removed and the shortfall in part replaced in their salary.

There is no reason for their pay to increase; it cannot be related to performance the performance isn't there, a significant real terms increase is not going to solve corrupted party candidacy procedures or inject a new vein of political life into the three party system, and lastly it is hard to find a real comparison for the Member's outwith the third sector and religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom