MP's to get a 10% pay rise this year

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is the point lost in all of the shouting from opponents of the pay rise. IPSA has said it will not cost taxpayers a penny more. If you don't pay MPs a decent salary, then you don't get the best people applying for the job. Peanuts and monkeys.

HOWEVER, we do not need 650 MPs to represent 63.5 million people. Cull the number of MPs by reducing the total by one third and you've got yourself a decent cost saving.

Depends what you mean by best. Best to me is a government representative of the people it works for. All you need is someone who understands and is reasonably smart.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

good to form, the ranters are ignoring the background of the story. nevermind about 5 year pay freeze and a committee deciding the pay award two years ago.

Snouts in the trough.

 

[yxee]

Is this because the government have cut some disability benefits or education to fund it?

Through the magic of internet research I can reveal that it is costed because pension contributions are reduced to offset this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Both of these, but given the austerity messages it just looks wrong and the timing is bad. Tying increases to other civil service professions could be the way forward I guess. Like or not, any job evaluation process (hay points etc) would rank MP at a level where £74k isn't unreasonable in relation to similarly-scored jobs and also worth bearing in mind that for many it's not a career, and they can get summarily dismissed after 5 years with a relatively modest payoff. To get the right calibre of people to stand the job has to pay reasonably well

The vast majority of us have risk of redundancy with a modest payoff. MPs do not differ from the real world in this sense.

 

[Glawstergull]

This thread shows how too many people understand very little about almost everything.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Under one month in power and they have sorted fox hunting and a pay-rise for themselves

#AllInItTogether

But have they done anything about inheritance tax or taken any further steps to prop up the corrupted housing market yet...?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Both of these, but given the austerity messages it just looks wrong and the timing is bad. Tying increases to other civil service professions could be the way forward I guess. Like or not, any job evaluation process (hay points etc) would rank MP at a level where £74k isn't unreasonable in relation to similarly-scored jobs and also worth bearing in mind that for many it's not a career, and they can get summarily dismissed after 5 years with a relatively modest payoff. To get the right calibre of people to stand the job has to pay reasonably well

I don't think Andy Burnham is doing anyone any favours by saying he'll hand back his 10% pay rise. The public wanted an independent body to set the pay and they got it. That body has said the overall cost to the taxpayer is unchanged, it's simply the mix of salary and expenses that has varied. That body has said that having realigned the salary and expenses they propose future increases to be matched to average UK earnings.

That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Andy Burnham will win popularity by his noble gesture, but given he's a candidate for the Labour leadership he's effectively buying those extra votes. By dint of his positions in government and the Shadow Cabinet he is a man of influence and will be able to earn. Those new MPs who won't be able to claim the old level of expenses will need that extra salary and should not be made to feel pressurised into replicating Burnham's stance.

I wish the media and electorate could be grown up about this issue and I wish the MPs would exercise some restraint on the extra-curricular earnings too. I think the reduction in the number of MPs whilst keeping the budget the same has some merit.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

There are some pretty ill-informed people on this thread.

These pay rises are not being decided by the MPs, but by IPSA.

And for someone above saying they earn about the same as a Head Teacher, it's actually about 3/4 of what a Secondary Head earns.

And about half of what a Premiership footballer earns in a week.

I'd cut the number of MPs by a third, and pay them at least double, and get rid of the expense system.

 

[Nibble]

There are some pretty ill-informed people on this thread.

These pay rises are not being decided by the MPs, but by IPSA.

And for someone above saying they earn about the same as a Head Teacher, it's actually about 3/4 of what a Secondary Head earns.

And about half of what a Premiership footballer earns in a week.

I'd cut the number of MPs by a third, and pay them at least double, and get rid of the expense system.

I agree.

I do realise it's not the MP's that set the pay rise. I stand by the fact that this pay rise is totally out of order but I also admit I was wrong on some basic points.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

So many uneducated people who have their head in the sand over this.

IPSA is INDEPENDENT. Cameron could overule this but then IPSA would have to be disbanded as it will have lost its main function as acting an outside agent for the purposes and checks and balances.
Under this system MPs do not have a say over their pay (they don't vote on it), so they can not be 'pigs in a trough'. This 'rise' is really overdue, pay hasn't gone up for MP's in real terms since the time of Thatcher.
Of course it's not popular, but the MPs have to accept the money as part of their salary, what they then do with that is up to them - but they can not be blamed for an independent organisation making this decision.

 

[gregbrighton]

Who gives a shit if IPSA or the government is making the recommendation. IPSA is another quango set up not to make it look as if the government is making the decision. It's a ****ing disgrace and there are tw@ts here defending it like the menial saps they are.

 

[spongy]

This is the point lost in all of the shouting from opponents of the pay rise. IPSA has said it will not cost taxpayers a penny more.

I don't agree with this. What they're saying is that because we found out about the blatant stealing that happened with expenses and that the rules have been tightened the MP's have in effect had a pay cut. So to counter balance this they will spread out the "old" expenses budget and redistribute it evenly across all salaries to give a % pay rise.

It may not cost us more but it's still a hefty bill.

What is wrong with just an inflation matched rise like most of us would love (my missus being a civvy for Sussex Police who hasn't had a rise in 7 years) and just keep the excess for the public purse strings

 

[wellquickwoody]

Who gives a shit if IPSA or the government is making the recommendation. IPSA is another quango set up not to make it look as if the government is making the decision. It's a ****ing disgrace and there are tw@ts here defending it like the menial saps they are.

tw@ts and menial saps you say? Mark you down with Mustapha for being on the left side of socialism and ready for anarchy like the rest of the ill informed twunts who are anti everything. CJTC.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Fu** FIFA our government is one of the most corrupt going! Been saying it for years

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Through the magic of internet research I can reveal that it is costed because pension contributions are reduced to offset this.

Aparently it is fiscally neutral, which is something I guess. Idependant body or not, the message it sends while the public pay freeze is on is quite dreadful. However, I have said for years that MPs ought to be paid more, get less expenses and not be allowed to have a second paid job while they are elected.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

 

[beorhthelm]

Who gives a shit if IPSA or the government is making the recommendation. IPSA is another quango set up not to make it look as if the government is making the decision. It's a ****ing disgrace and there are tw@ts here defending it like the menial saps they are.

i dont suppose its worth explaining to you the difference between government and parliament?

 

[Prince Monolulu]

i dont suppose its worth explaining to you the difference between government and parliament?

You can't get a government of owls?

 

[1234andcounting]

Whilst I accept that this is a decision independent of the Government, I am sure if the Prime Minister of the day were to recommend that in the circumstances it would be a good idea to defer any damaging increase at this time, this would be accepted. I also accept that parliamentarians should receive reasonable remuneration for their work.

But, and this is a big but, unlike the other occupations with which that of MP has been compared on this thread, there is no entry level requirement for an MP. Let's be honest, in about 80% of constituencies you could put up the proverbial monkey and they would be returned, so it is just like winning the lottery, not like earning a salary.

 

[clippedgull]

I think the public sector unions will play havoc with this parliament.

Any MP who doesn't wish to take the 10% should and then donate it to the food banks in his/her constituency.