MP'S proposed 11% Pay Rise

[Butts]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10503774/MPs-pay-rise-wrong-Danny-Alexander.html

It is “wholly inappropriate” for politicians to take a substantial pay increase while families are tightening their belts and public sector workers endure pay restraint, Mr Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said.

Well MP's handed responsibility for their pay to an independent body after criticism they were awarding themselves unjustified rises and this is the outcome.

Surely they should be allowed to accept the results of the report and accept the money.

Taxpayers can't have it both ways - can they ?

 

[Aictos]

11% pay rise is obscene especially in these times that everyone is told to cut back to reduce costs, everyone else I guess would have to make do with 3% or 4% pay rise if they're lucky...

MPs should as a matter of principle refuse the pay rise as they're are obviously out of touch with the common man!

 

[HST Power]

I can sympathise with the argument that they get paid less than their European counterparts.

I can also sympathise that as an MP; you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Take the rise, papers scream 'out of touch wealthy scum'. Don't take the rise, papers scream 'vote winning' tactics.

Nonetheless, any MP who does accept it has got to be completely mad!

 

[Northerner]

Perhaps it should be performance based,
Then that cretin Ian Duncan Smith would be below the minimum wage. As he can't tell his arse from his elbow

 

[Oswyntail]

Perhaps it should be performance based,
Then that cretin Ian Duncan Smith would be below the minimum wage. As he can't tell his arse from his elbow

This just shows the problem with MPs pay. Public assessment of what they do all too often descends into the emotive, and is rarely based on any knowledge of the work they do, or a genuine assessment of the outcomes. We all know what an MP is worth, don't we?
I do not think they should take the raise, but chiefly because other Whitehall public servants have had a pay freeze for the last three years. Once (if ever?) the current fiscal situation is resolved, then there should be a proper review carried out, and, if this results in a 50% pay rise, so be it. Till then, lead by example.

 

[meridian2]

I can sympathise with the argument that they get paid less than their European counterparts.

I can also sympathise that as an MP; you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Take the rise, papers scream 'out of touch wealthy scum'. Don't take the rise, papers scream 'vote winning' tactics.

Goes with the territory of being an MP. They place themselves in those situations, not the papers.

 

[tbtc]

Give them the increase.

What people don't appreciate is that this is mainly funded by getting rid of other allowances (or "supports" - e.g. if you lose your seat) - I'd much rather have one simple salary rather than fiddling around with lots of different pots of money.

That's one reason for the expenses problems - they were grubbing around with different incomes - I'd rather give MPs £100,000pa to cover everything (pension contributions, the cost of renting a second home etc), with extra only for job related things like travel.

What annoys me is that those on the left are so upset about this "cabinet of millionaires" who are privately wealthy and out of touch with the likes of "thee and me", yet want to keep MPs relatively poor* so that only those who are independantly wealthy would be able to do the job.

(* - relatively, compared to other senior positions in private firms/ local government etc - before anyone points out the blinding obvious that an MP gets paid a lot more than a supermarket shelf stacker)

 

[Butts]

I believe some of the raise will be taken up with extra Pension Contributions and a few other changes to allowances.

Is it just envy that provides a "sackcloth and ashes" attitude towards their pay.

In times of economic hardship no one complains about payoffs in the hundreds of thousands if not millions to unsuccessful football managers. These payoffs must have some impact on the viability of the clubs and what they charge fans.

 

[meridian2]

I believe some of the raise will be taken up with extra Pension Contributions and a few other changes to allowances.

Is it just envy that provides a "sackcloth and ashes" attitude towards their pay.

In times of economic hardship no one complains about payoffs in the hundreds of thousands if not millions to unsuccessful football managers. These payoffs must have some impact on the viability of the clubs and what they charge fans.

Except football managers aren't running our country.

And why would I be envious of an MP? Some clues to your logic here would be most appreciated.

 

[Butts]

Except football managers aren't running our country.

And why would I be envious of an MP? Some clues to your logic here would be most appreciated.

It's not envious of the MP but the salary, which seems quite prevalent with regard to a lot of professions who have allegedly made a mess of things.

With regard to this notwithstanding their much higher wages failed football mangers seem exempt from the opprobrium directed at other occupations.

 

[455driver]

MPs are massively overpaid, I mean they dont even push any buttons!

 

[meridian2]

It's not envious of the MP but the salary, which seems quite prevalent with regard to a lot of professions who have allegedly made a mess of things.

With regard to this notwithstanding their much higher wages failed football mangers seem exempt from the opprobrium directed at other occupations.

I see far higher amounts of money go to winners of the lottery, and I'm not envious of them, so why would I be envious of the salary MPs get? It's not as if it's given as some sort of gratis now is it, which then I would have recourse to perhaps be jealous of.

 

[telstarbox]

Give them £75k, a flat in a designated MPs' block in London, and an annual season ticket between their constituency and London - but no other paid jobs on the side allowed.

This would mean no expenses for second homes, travel, moats or anything else, and a more than decent salary for the MPs. When they retire or lose their seat the incoming MP gets the London flat instead.

 

[Butts]

I see far higher amounts of money go to winners of the lottery, and I'm not envious of them, so why would I be envious of the salary MPs get? It's not as if it's given as some sort of gratis now is it, which then I would have recourse to perhaps be jealous of.

I'm not saying you are envious but a lot of people seem to be judging by the reaction to the announcement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Give them £75k, a flat in a designated MPs' block in London, and an annual season ticket between their constituency and London - but no other paid jobs on the side allowed.

This would mean no expenses for second homes, travel, moats or anything else, and a more than decent salary for the MPs. When they retire or lose their seat the incoming MP gets the London flat instead.

An MP's Barracks would perhaps be better ....

 

[Yew]

Give them the rise, we want the best running our country, and paying less than comparable private sector jobs isnt a way to achieve this.

 

[yorksrob]

We'll I'm not averse to MP's salaries being reviewed and perhaps brought into line with legislators of other nations. But immediately after this is done, they should have their salaries reduced in proportion to all of the power ceded to foreign institutions, be they the EU, or the ECHR.

The salary should also be reduced in line with the power relinquished to multinational corporations and the private sector. Parliament runs the British state, and there has been a concerted effort to "roll back" the scope of the state. MP's salaries should reflect this.

Once this has been done, MP's salaries should be raised (or not), every year automatically in line with other public sector workers.

 

[maniacmartin]

Give them £75k, a flat in a designated MPs' block in London, and an annual season ticket between their constituency and London - but no other paid jobs on the side allowed.

This would mean no expenses for second homes, travel, moats or anything else, and a more than decent salary for the MPs. When they retire or lose their seat the incoming MP gets the London flat instead.

I couldn't agree more. Why they need to buy their own homes beats me.

 

[HST Power]

Goes with the territory of being an MP. They place themselves in those situations, not the papers.

That's true, but positive reporting about our MPs is thin on the ground to say the least.

Give them £75k, a flat in a designated MPs' block in London, and an annual season ticket between their constituency and London - but no other paid jobs on the side allowed.

This would mean no expenses for second homes, travel, moats or anything else, and a more than decent salary for the MPs. When they retire or lose their seat the incoming MP gets the London flat instead.

I'd go for that!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is said that this suggested salary rise will not come into effect until AFTER the next general election, so one cannot make assumptions on comparisons with other ones AT THIS PRESENT TIME.

It will give those standing as future MP's after the next General Election to argue their particular views on this matter PRIOR TO the holding of that election and then see what the electorate has to say about their views.

 

[TheKnightWho]

We'll I'm not averse to MP's salaries being reviewed and perhaps brought into line with legislators of other nations. But immediately after this is done, they should have their salaries reduced in proportion to all of the power ceded to foreign institutions, be they the EU, or the ECHR.

The salary should also be reduced in line with the power relinquished to multinational corporations and the private sector. Parliament runs the British state, and there has been a concerted effort to "roll back" the scope of the state. MP's salaries should reflect this.

Once this has been done, MP's salaries should be raised (or not), every year automatically in line with other public sector workers.

So you essentially want to provide them with a massive incentive to make Britain a monolithic police state, isolated from the rest of the world? In other words, North Korea?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Give them £75k, a flat in a designated MPs' block in London, and an annual season ticket between their constituency and London - but no other paid jobs on the side allowed.

This would mean no expenses for second homes, travel, moats or anything else, and a more than decent salary for the MPs. When they retire or lose their seat the incoming MP gets the London flat instead.

I'm very much in favour of limiting 'paid jobs on the side'....and lets face it, for many MP's it appears that actually being an MP is a job on the side. Paid directorships, working in the legal sector, consultancies etc makes me think that many don't have the time to be an MP!
I'd also say that a salary was introduced so that candidates, particularly in the Labour Party, were introduced so that those without a personal fortune were not disadvantaged....the salary means far more to someone brought up in a working class area of a British city than someone who has made a fortune in the city or who runs a legal firm.

 

[yorksrob]

So you essentially want to provide them with a massive incentive to make Britain a monolithic police state, isolated from the rest of the world? In other words, North Korea?

No, I expect parliament to produce the laws by which the country is governed. That is its job. If it decides to offload any of that responsibility, pay should reflect that.

The only exception to this would be if parliament decided to devolve power downwards, either to regions or localities or the electorate. Parliament should only be disincentivised against restricting democratic accountability, not increasing it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, I expect parliament to produce the laws by which the country is governed. That is its job. If it decides to offload any of that responsibility, pay should reflect that.

That's not really accurate. Producing laws is only one part of Parliament's job and only one of many responsibilities that MPs have.

The only exception to this would be if parliament decided to devolve power downwards, either to regions or localities or the electorate. Parliament should only be disincentivised against restricting democratic accountability, not increasing it.

That sounds rather like you want MPs to be penalised financially for introducing policies that you personally happen to disagree with, but not penalized for introducing policies that you like. That doesn't sound to me like the way democracy should work. If there are discussions about which organizations should have which powers, I'd rather like MPs to be able to make those decisions based on the situation at hand, and not be given a strong vested interest via their salary in favouring one policy over another.

 

[WessexEclectic]

That sounds rather like you want MPs to be penalised financially for introducing policies that you personally happen to disagree with, but not penalized for introducing policies that you like. That doesn't sound to me like the way democracy should work. If there are discussions about which organizations should have which powers, I'd rather like MPs to be able to make those decisions based on the situation at hand, and not be given a strong vested interest via their salary in favouring one policy over another.

Given Parliament has succeded competances such as Energy, Transport, Agriculture and Fisheries policies to a supranational body, pray tell why the MPs are getting a pay rise?

 

[yorksrob]

That's not really accurate. Producing laws is only one part of Parliament's job and only one of many responsibilities that MPs have.

Well, parliament does have other tasks, although I'd argue that legislation is the prime one. I should have made my emphasis clearer. The job of legislation belongs to parliament.

That sounds rather like you want MPs to be penalised financially for introducing policies that you personally happen to disagree with, but not penalized for introducing policies that you like. That doesn't sound to me like the way democracy should work. If there are discussions about which organizations should have which powers, I'd rather like MPs to be able to make those decisions based on the situation at hand, and not be given a strong vested interest via their salary in favouring one policy over another.

Not at all. I'm not disputing that parliament will introduce policies I disagree with (or for that matter, more local organisations with devolved power). That is a fact of democracy. What should be limited is the power of parliament to give that power away to organisations that are either less democratically accountable or not accountable at all. It seems too much like parliaments trying to bind their successors for my liking.

From a personal point of view, If MP's aren't taking overall responsibility for making the law, they aren't doing a full job, so why should they be paid the full wage of a legislator ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not at all. I'm not disputing that parliament will introduce policies I disagree with (or for that matter, more local organisations with devolved power). That is a fact of democracy. What should be limited is the power of parliament to give that power away to organisations that are either less democratically accountable or not accountable at all.

Moving power to other organizations *is* a policy, and one which different people will have different opinions on. There are many reasons why it may be desirable for Parliament to transfer some powers to different bodies (some regulations require technical knowledge that MPs don't have, some issues are either local or supranational in nature, etc. etc.) You have singled out a particular type of transfer of powers (to supranational institutions), made it clear that you disagree in principle with those kinds of transfers, and then stated that you believe MPs should have a salary reduction for doing so. You have singled out another transfer of powers away from Parliament (to local authorities), indicated that in general you support that kind of transfer of powers, and stated that you don't believe MPs should receive a salary reduction for doing that (even if it has exactly the same degree of impact on how much work MPs have). That is clearly (1) arguing for MPs to be given a financial incentive against certain policies (ie. policies related to distribution of various legal powers) that you disagree with, and (2) very obviously likely to introduce a massive conflict of interest when MPs are deciding on policies related to distribution of powers.

From a personal point of view, If MP's aren't taking overall responsibility for making the law, they aren't doing a full job, so why should they be paid the full wage of a legislator ?

I can only assume from that comment that you are unaware of just what responsibilities MPs do actually have. Their job is most definitely *not* confined to or even primarily about making laws. (And since most MPs do not in any case have the legal skills required to write laws, that's arguably a very good thing).

 

[yorksrob]

Moving power to other organizations *is* a policy, and one which different people will have different opinions on. There are many reasons why it may be desirable for Parliament to transfer some powers to different bodies (some regulations require technical knowledge that MPs don't have, some issues are either local or supranational in nature, etc. etc.) You have singled out a particular type of transfer of powers (to supranational institutions), made it clear that you disagree in principle with those kinds of transfers, and then stated that you believe MPs should have a salary reduction for doing so. You have singled out another transfer of powers away from Parliament (to local authorities), indicated that in general you support that kind of transfer of powers, and stated that you don't believe MPs should receive a salary reduction for doing that (even if it has exactly the same degree of impact on how much work MPs have). That is clearly (1) arguing for MPs to be given a financial incentive against certain policies (ie. policies related to distribution of various legal powers) that you disagree with, and (2) very obviously likely to introduce a massive conflict of interest when MPs are deciding on policies related to distribution of powers.

The crucial difference is, where Government delegates a power to a Local Authority, it is still for Government to monitor, review and if necessary repeal that decision if necessary. The responsibility for how that power still rests with central Government.

Compare this to VAT law in which EU member states are required to charge a minimum rate of VAT on goods. Central Government has no power to review or repeal this power even on such a trifling aspect of policy. The only way this situation would change would be through a large constitutional upheaval. Such situations represent a real diminution in the role of parliament, and as a consequence, the role of MP's.

I can only assume from that comment that you are unaware of just what responsibilities MPs do actually have. Their job is most definitely *not* confined to or even primarily about making laws. (And since most MPs do not in any case have the legal skills required to write laws, that's arguably a very good thing).

The primary role of parliament is making laws, hence why it is called a legislature, and while MP's do have other roles including committees, sorting out knotty problems for their constituents etc, their primary role in the constitution is reviewing and deciding legislation. That is what they are elected to do.

True they would probably need a legal bod to articulate the laws, and of course, much policy starts in the Executive (itself made up of members of parliament), but it is for Members to decide what policies make it into law.