'What should we pay our MPs?' poll discussion 18 May 2009 at 11:23AM edited 26 May 2009 at 10:50AM in Money Saving Polls 87 replies 9.8K views

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll between 18-26 May 2009:

What should we pay our MPs?

Unless you’ve recently been living under a rock, you can't have missed the MP expenses scandal. One argument put forward is MPs aren't paid a wage equivalent to the calibre of people we want to attract.

So forget vitriol for the current lot, which of these is nearest what we should pay our MPs?

Assume there’ll also be legit expenses for office staffing and extra living allowance for those with distant constituencies.

Apologies for any salary inaccuracies below, they're from reliable web sources but of course specifc cases vary widely.

A. Nothing, it should be voluntary. - 9% (873 votes)
B. £11,000/yr (c. Carphone Warehouse staff basic. Source: Guardian) - 2% (225 votes)
C. £25,000/yr (c. London Bus driver salary) - 6% (568 votes)
D. £30,000/yr (c. Uni Lecturer with post doctoral research & experience) - 15% (1492 votes)
E. £49,000/yr (c. London post-natal ward Matron) - 10% (950 votes)
F. £54,000/yr (c. Inspector level Police officer & above) - 11% (1077 votes)
G. £64,766/yr (MP's current salary) - 16% (1561 votes)
H. £80,000/yr (c. Director of efficiency savings, city council, 4-day week) - 11% (1067 votes)
I. £97,000/yr (c. ACA chartered accountant avg) - 4% (442 votes)
J. £103,000/yr (c. District judge's salary) - 6% (549 votes)
K. £110,000/yr (c. Avg family GP salary) - 6% (633 votes)
L. £160,000/yr (c. Weekly salary of Man City striker Robinho) - 1% (137 votes)
M. £172,000/yr (c. High court judge's salary) - 2% (203 votes)
N. £3.5m/yr (c. Top 100 UK company chief exec pay & bonus) - 0% (14 votes)
O. £50m/yr (c. Simon Cowell reported earnings. Source: Forbes.com) - 1% (119 votes)

Total Votes: 9910

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

ThinkingOfLinking

I'd say C, because for a fair few MPs, it's only a sideline anyway; I knew one who had a full time job paying a good wage (more than £25K) as well as being an MP. This should also help attract candidates who are doing it for the love of their constituency and its constituents rather than those who just see pound signs. I don't tar all MPs with the same brush; I've known some great ones and have even considered running for the position myself at times when particularly fed up with local council problems.

Pssst

Peg it at the current level.
do not pay second homes allowance.

HM government to build/lease a purpose made building which will have facilities and rooms similar to a premier inn to provide overnight acc/weekly acc in London.

Pay standard rail fair travel. If MP wants 1st class,he pays the upgrade.
Pay legitimate office running expenses (i.e limited no of staff,equipment etc)
No MP to employ a member of family. Employment opportunities to be advertised in the open market and successful applicant scrutinised to ensure no fiddling.

ThinkingOfLinking

I completely agree with all your points, Pssst. I actually don't see why people would be an MP for an area so far from home anyway. I mean if I was going to be an MP, I'd do it for my local community as I'd know them as a resident there anyway. And it would make me more accessible to them. What's the point of an MP for Harrogate living in Harlesden for example?

Pssst

Flickering_Ember wrote: »

I completely agree with all your points, Pssst. I actually don't see why people would be an MP for an area so far from home anyway. I mean if I was going to be an MP, I'd do it for my local community as I'd know them as a resident there anyway. And it would make me more accessible to them. What's the point of an MP for Harrogate living in Harlesden for example?

I agree. MPs should live in or close to areas which they aspire to represent.

Midas

Ironically, I would say that their current 'take home' - about £80k on average (£65k basic plus expenses) is about right. This would put them somewhere near a decent university professor, although still well below the average GP, judge, solicitor etc. It would also leave them significantly less well paid than virtually anyone at the BBC.

So give them a pay rise and abolish all expenses, apart from travel between their constituency and London.

NO-BRAIN

I'm so unhappy with the way they have conducted themselves and think it's acceptable. I'd struggle to get a stapler through on my expenses at work and yet to be able to claim money and pay their own family etc it's criminal....in my eyes it's little different to someone claiming benefits they are not entitled to and should be punished accordingly.

I'm further annoyed that the week after next I am having to pay out childcare for the day so my daughters school can be used as a polling station. I think we should campaign like in Brewsters Millions and have a 'none of the above' box to show no faith in whichever MP's might win!!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Bean_Counter

Pssst wrote: »

HM government to build/lease a purpose made building which will have facilities and rooms similar to a premier inn to provide overnight acc/weekly acc in London.

Is that not what we are doing at the moment. It's called the Olympic village and will be vacant in the not too distant future with plenty of capacity.

Saucepot

I voted A.

If you can afford to do it for nothing, then you will either be an individual of success or sponsered by your socialist brothers.

Bertie-H

Unless I am mistaken, aren't MPs - after completing two terms, i.e. 8 to 10 years - already entitled to a very generous pension?

I think we can do without them. All the important decisions are taken by the European Parliament - better keep the MEPs in check! National parliaments have less and less to say about what their countries can do.

Bertie

bumpoowee

I actually think they are underpaid, and voted for £80k. But I also think there are far too many of them. If we had around 300 MPs I'd be happy to see them get a 25% pay rise. I don't see why we need 600+ and then hundreds more in the house of lords??