Seven in ten MPs on £65k believe they are underpaid

[Uncle C]

that really boils down to an individuals definition of living.

If I got out for a meal and can only afford cheap £10 bottles of house wine, I would not regard myself as living!

I think that proves the point nicely.

 

[Notters]

If you live in the south of England, have 2 kids, mortgage and you are the only earner £50k isn't that much

well aren't you lucky you can get a mortgage.

I suspect you could replace 50k with whatever figure amounts to 5k less than what you're earning and your statement would still be about as valid.

The fact is, £50k is not a massive amount of money if you are a single wage earner for a family of 5 and are paying a mortgage of, say, £1,500.

Then your partner should get a job.

 

[Simster]

Then your partner should get a job.

That's not really for you to say but I'll bite anyway - why should she? All I've said is that £50k isn't a massive amount of money.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

They're massively underpaid.

Agreed.

I would triple their Salaries but then ban them from having outside business interests, and stop them holding Directorships too.

 

[Notters]

That's not really for you to say but I'll bite anyway - why should she? All I've said is that £50k isn't a massive amount of money.

sorry simster, It was the tone of the other poster that bothered me. Most of us under 40 have no chance of EVER, in our lifetimes being able to get a mortgage, at least in the south of England; even working in jobs requiring post graduate qualifications. Rent has gone up so much in the last four years that it's getting hard for my girlfriend and I to afford to rent a one bedroom flat in brighton. Obviously all these things are relative though so it's very hard to compare.

 

[Waynflete]

If we want the right people to be MPs we need to attract people from the business world, not have our country run by career politicians. In order to attract these people a salary of £80k+ is the minimum we would need to pay.

And it would be easy to finance without it costing the taxpayer a penny. There are currently 650 MPs. Reduce the number to 500 (more than adequate for a country our size). 650x£65k is about equal to 500x£85k.

Result: Better and more qualified people interested in becoming MPs; there are fewer of them to create mayhem in the House of Commons; no increase in cost.

No, sorry, I disagree with this. More pay does not necessarily mean better quality (see my posts above). There are a lot of people currently earning less than £65k who would be better and more qualified than existing MPs, but they're put off by the current political culture. Raising the salaries won't change that.

 

[Simster]

sorry simster, It was the tone of the other poster that bothered me. Most of us under 40 have no chance of EVER, in our lifetimes being able to get a mortgage, at least in the south of England; even working in jobs requiring post graduate qualifications. Rent has gone up so much in the last four years that it's getting hard for my girlfriend and I to afford to rent a one bedroom flat in brighton. Obviously all these things are relative though so it's very hard to compare.

I have to say that I sympathise with those being priced out of the housing market and have my own ideas how to tackle it, but this is moving well away from the point of the thread. Was his tone offensive really? He was just pointing out that £50k isn't much if you are paying to support a family and keep a roof over their heads wasn't he?

 

[Danny-Boy]

Well when you think some nobody of 20 at Arsenal called Carl Jenkinson is earning 32k a week (another thread) it does kind of show how little perspective there is in the world.

THIS and this and this...

 

[W.C.]

I take a lot of points here and I doubt there is ever a good time for politicians to say they deserve a pay rise, but NOW? When most of the news is about cuts and austerity.

Bit daft.

 

[gingertom]

TBH 65k isn't much , I run a team of IT guys up in town and most of them earn more than that. They wander around in flip flops and drink and swear a lot, some of them rock up once a month to the office. Happy to pay them for their skills.
If we value MPs less than that, well ..... just don't complain about the calibre of person you get.

 

[cloud]

Do we really need 600+ MP's in a country our size ? Why not reduce this to a quarter and quadruple their pay then everyone is happy

That is indeed what they are planning on doing BBC News - Boundary changes: Revised proposals for English constituencies

The thing to remember is that it's not just the basic salary. They also get one of their homes completely paid for, and if they claim for their consituency home, they can still claim for hotels when they visit London. They can effectively choose whether or not to travel First Class. They can claim for whatever they want for their office in the way of computers etc, and will probably keep it all afterwards. They can often claim their meals and travel, and many still get their mates/family on the payroll.

Expenses alone can come to as much as £180k pa . But more than that, is the autonomy to pretty much spend as you wish. How many jobs give you that kind of free rein? It's like being self-employed, but with a guaranteed income and as many expenses as your ethical stance allows you to claim.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed.

I don't know about you but I would like the best minds in the UK running this country and at present, I would say, on the whole they are not. This is generally because the corporate world pays far far more.

How can we hope to persuade the brilliant young minds in this country to choose a career in politics, when those running the country are currently paid less than many directors of small-medium companies?

Why is it the country expects all other public sector workers to be paid peanuts but PMs should get a salary commensurate with the private sector?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They are definitely underpaid. They run our country for ffs! It is a difficult, thankless job from which they can be kicked out of at any time. Anyone who thinks their job is easy is a moron.

Do they? The cabinet run the country, the rest do little more than vote on our behalf and a bit of ground work in the community if youre lucky. Kicked out at any time? I'd say an MP's position is safer than a lot of private sector jobs as you're pretty much guaranteed 5 years work at a time.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That's not really for you to say but I'll bite anyway - why should she? All I've said is that £50k isn't a massive amount of money.

Almost twice the national average annual salary strikes me as a fair amount. I am sure this doesn't go very far if you have a 1500 a month mortgage but then my beer money doesn't go far if I spunk it on champagne.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

sorry simster, It was the tone of the other poster that bothered me. Most of us under 40 have no chance of EVER, in our lifetimes being able to get a mortgage, at least in the south of England; even working in jobs requiring post graduate qualifications. Rent has gone up so much in the last four years that it's getting hard for my girlfriend and I to afford to rent a one bedroom flat in brighton. Obviously all these things are relative though so it's very hard to compare.

Your right. The economy we have now is what we are going to be left with, if I am going to be honest with you. There are simply not enough quality jobs. I really can't see where these jobs are going to come from either. All the jobs being created are minimum wage jobs with absolutely no scope to improve. I'm probably going to wind some people up for saying this, but I don't think the job situation is being improved by allowing hundreds of thousands people in to this country. It's just created more competition for jobs and driven wages down. Just my opinion.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I would agree £65k is underpaid, the your average qualified, accountant lawyer etc would easily exceed that. If you wanna earn serious money you don't become an MP..

And if MPs don't like their wages...they don't have to do the job...nobody forces them to do it...they knew the salary. £86k plus expenses and extra's seem fine by me.

 

[abc]

And if MPs don't like their wages...they don't have to do the job...nobody forces them to do it...they knew the salary. £86k plus expenses and extra's seem fine by me.

Excactly and therein lies the problem. People of adequate calibre, experience, skill and integrity that actually might be good at running the country will not be interested in a job that pays way way below what they could earn elsewhere. On top of this they know that their personal lives will become public property, if they make the smallest error in judgement or make one verbal slip they will be ridiculed and that most of the population will hold them in contempt. As you imply, it's a free market but with the reality of the job description iti s no wonder we only get muppets applying.

It's a catch 22, but if we want to have politicians that we can respect and do a good job then we, the public, have to make the job attractive to those with the skills to do it. We, the taxpayer and voter, are the employer and every employer has to offer pay and conditions suitable to attract the type of candidate he or she needs.

 

[Mackenzie]

I don't think a nurse would agree, but a footballer might have some sympathy.

 

[BLOCK F]

I think you are confusing me with someone else who is having a pop at MPs. Please re-read the context of my earlier posts.

Uncle C,point taken.
In the frenzy of NSC debate,it all went slighty awry!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I've always fancied being an MP but the things that put me off ( in order ) are :

> I wouldn't want to be aligned to any party so it's close to impossible to get elected
> I wouldn't want the intrusion into my private life
> The hours are very long and you don't necessarily get weekends off
> I can currently earn more, doing less and having a life outside work

£65k really is a pittance for what a good MP does.