Pay Rise for MP's (£65,000)

benb76

drc wrote: »

"We are all equal but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell, Animal Farm

The "all animals are equal etc." is a very well known literary quote, the least you could do is get it right.

That aside, I really do not have a problem with MPs getting a 65k salary if it means that we get talented people running the country. It's a very hard job to actually get in to and I'm sure the average MP earns his/her money.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

Sadly until the electorate grow up and take a a realistic view of these matter we will have either 'career' politicians or rich guys only governing us.

The electorate are already grown up.

If MPs treat the electorate with derision, they can hardly expect respect coming back.

The media coverage is what steers the electorate's view of MP professionalism, and our MPs have hardly contributed to this :-
- Mr Winterton moaning about sitting with riff-raff on the train
- the attempt to cover up expenses detail
- Michael Martin's eviction as speaker
- duck houses, moats and 8K plasma tellys.

Before we pay them an extra penny, I suggest our 'right honourables' work at repairing their image a bit.

We have good reason to be cynical.

phil_b_2

I wouldnt be an MP for £65k.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

maninthestreet wrote: »

Well, it's not as if no one wants to be an MP anymore, is it?

Yes, but look at the calibre of those who do.

When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys..... And oh boy, did we get some monkeys.

I wouldn't think twice about turning down that job, with all the travel, nights away from home, requirement to pre-fund & re-claim expenses, hassle from the public, media, etc. Not to mention giving up a better paying and far more secure career path in your chosen field.

65K is nowhere near enough. You'd have to be close to double that for most professionals to consider it.

worldtraveller

It's not just the salary though! It's the allowances and gold plated pension that they they receive for miniscule contributions. They have to pay a miserly 10% of their salary into their pension fund, which subsequently pays out a guaranteed 2/3rds of final salary at retirement, index linked for the rest of their lives.

To purchase a MP's pension in the current annuity market would cost over £1 million each.

What's more last year alone the taxpayer had to stump up another extra £800,000 to subsidise part of the £50 million+ deficit in their pension fund. Contributions to MPs' pensions from the public purse went up from 26.8% to 28.7% last year to cover an increase in the fund's deficit. The defecit has nearly doubled in just 3 years from around £25 million to the current £50 million+.

MPs are also entitled to a number of individual allowances. These include:

A Communications Allowance of £10,000 per annum.

An Additional Cost Allowance of up to £20,902 per annum for those with constituencies outside London, for the cost of maintaining a second home.

A London Supplement Allowance of £1,618 for those with constituencies in London.

Free travel to and from the Houses of Parliament and on Parliamentary business, as well as a Motor Mileage Allowance of up to 20,000 miles per annum at 57.7p per mile, and for mileage above 20,000 miles at 26.6p per mile. Ministers may claim on the same terms if they use their private cars for Ministerial business, but are usually provided with an official car.

A Bicycle Allowance of 20p per mile and a Motorcycle Allowance of 24p per mile in respect of journeys undertaken by bicycle while on Parliamentary duties in the UK.

Free travel for spouses and children aged under 18 for up to 15 journeys per calendar year between Westminster and the MP's registered home or constituency.

Office and Secretarial Allowances of up to £77,534 per annum for London MPs, and £66,458 per annum for non-London MPs (although this can be up to £77,534 in respect of full-time London-based staff), exclusive of pension contributions.

An Incidental Expenses Provision of £19,325 per annum to meet other expenditure which Members may incur wholly necessarily and exclusively in performing their Parliamentary duties.

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

The electorate are already grown up.

If MPs treat the electorate with derision, they can hardly expect respect coming back.

The media coverage is what steers the electorate's view of MP professionalism, and our MPs have hardly contributed to this :-
- Mr Winterton moaning about sitting with riff-raff on the train
- the attempt to cover up expenses detail
- Michael Martin's eviction as speaker
- duck houses, moats and 8K plasma tellys.

Before we pay them an extra penny, I suggest our 'right honourables' work at repairing their image a bit.

We have good reason to be cynical.

I'm not looking for revenge for their misdeeds.

I rather take the view that it is in my and my families interest to be governed by people of competence and experience.
I see the issues as how we get better MPs not how we punish them for their sins.

Clearly expenses issues need reform.

Travelling first class is quite common at reasonable managerial levels in private sector. The very fact you use Winterton as an example is sadly one of the reasons why good people don't want to be MPs ... every little throwaway comment reported..babyish in my view; we need a much much more robust attitude before good people will want to be MPs.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I wouldn't want to be an MP. Imagine the loons you'd have to "represent" and the endless rabid letters scrawled in red biro whining about bin collections and how the new District Line trains aren't painted the same shade of green as on the tube map, signed Disgusted of Down Your Road. I am reminded of In The Thick Of It, when there's a cabinet reshuffle and the MP is terrified he might be lumped with the Minister of Agriculture job; "please don't let me have to be nice to farmers..."

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

worldtraveller wrote: »

It's not just the salary though! It's the allowances and gold plated pension that they they receive for miniscule contributions.

Pension, fair enough......

But allowances are not as generous as they appear to be.

A Communications Allowance of £10,000 per annum.

I think the key words that you've missed here is "Up To".... They still have to provide receipts and reclaim for what was actually spent I think.

An Additional Cost Allowance of up to £20,902 per annum for those with constituencies outside London, for the cost of maintaining a second home.

And for the 90% who live outside London, that second home should be in London. And 20K doesn't go far in London, particularly for family housing.

A London Supplement Allownace of £1,618 for those with constituencies in London.

Insignificant.

Free travel to and from the Houses of Parliament and on Parliamentary business, as well as a Motor Mileage Allownace of up to 20,000 miles per annum at 57.7p per mile, and for mileage above 20,000 miles at 26.6p per mile.

Most private firms offer around 45p a mile but without a tiered structure.

You're not making a profit at that level. Just covering costs.

A Bicycle Allowance of 20p per mile and a Motorcycle Allownace of 24p per mile in respect of journeys undertaken by bicycle while on Parliamentary duties in the UK.

Insignificant.

Free travel for spouses and children aged under 18 for up to 15 journeys per calendar year between Westminster and the MP's registered home or constituency.

That helps a bit....

Office and Secretarial Allowances of up to £77,534 per annum for London MPs, and £66,458 per annum for non-London MPs (although this can be up to £77,534 in respect of full-time London-based staff), exclusive of pension contributions.

Up to..... Again, via receipts, proven expenses, etc. And the costs of running a secretary in London, one in the constituency, and an office in the constituency would easily eat all that up.

And in the meantime, you have to fund it until you can re-claim.

An Incidental Expenses Provision of £19,325 per annum to meet other expenditure which Members may incur wholly necessarily and exclusively in performing their Parliamentary duties.

Again, up to, with receipts.

If the expenses system is run right, it's merely re-imbursing legitimate expenses claimed for work.

If we paid them more, they wouldn't need to fiddle the expenses.

peterg1965

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Without wishing to be pedantic (which means I am going to be pedantic) they have awarded themselves nothing. The pay review board is independent.

However I agree with your sentinent and that of Dave Prentice from Unison. In a time when pay restraint is called for it would not hurt for the MP's to set an example and turn this raise down.

I am no MP apologiser, however, they should get their pay rise as advised by the senior salaries pay award body. There will always be reasons why they shouldn't take their pay rise, we could all dream one up every year BUT we need to attract decent, honest people into Parliament and they should be appropriately renumerated. If you take out the emotion of expenses, they don't actually get a HUGE salary in the grand scheme of things, particluarly for working in Central London, travelling, commitments etc.

This is all part of the deal when we take away their previous perogative of voting for their own renumeration package and give it to an independent body.

I know I will be assualted by the masses for saying this, but hey ....... I just did!

worldtraveller

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Most private firms offer around 45p a mile but without a tiered structure.

You're not making a profit at that level. Just covering costs.

Do they? If they do, part of it will be taxable as a benefit. At 57p it's 17p per mile more than Joe Public can claim per mile from HMRC before being taxed as a benefit. Also, for Joe Public the 40p allowance only covers the first 10,000 miles, whereas the MPs get their 57p on the first 20,000 miles.

Also, unlike Joe Public they can claim for travel "between Westminster, home and constituency" (ie. commuting).

Other items you personally class as insignificant, all add up of course.