MP's Pensions

yertiz_2

Have just read this on Direct.Gov website as an e-petition;
"Have terms and conditions of the Final Salary Pensions of MP's changed in line with the changes being made to the rest of the Public Sector Pensions." As a 'new user' I am not allowed to give a link but its is easy to find on e-petitions, 'MP Pensions'
Any views/comments?

leveller2911

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22456

Not enough info really ,but I've signed purely because we "are all in it together"........

Bernie

....but of course, some are more "in it" than others. One of the finest examples of double-standards you can find. Is there no integrity in politics?.....

dunstonh

Any views/comments?

Their scheme was changed in 2009. Average contributions are typically higher already than most in the public sector. The scheme is also currently under a review again (most likely will result in higher contribution limits).

I see no point signing an e-petition that wastes time and potentially money when the facts are published.

middlepuss

dunstonh wrote: »

Their scheme was changed in 2009. Average contributions are typically higher already than most in the public sector. The scheme is also currently under a review again (most likely will result in higher contribution limits).

I see no point signing an e-petition that wastes time and potentially money when the facts are published.

I agree. And our MPs are underpaid. I know that some on here would have our MPs do the job for minimum wage, but underpaid politicians are a danger to democracy: they are more susceptible to bribery and corruption. In Singapore they pay their MPs a fortune and do not suffer the corruption so common in that region of the world.

So, to those who want to cut MPs' wages, pensions, etc - be careful what you wish for.

bigfreddiel

mps are well underpaid and deserve at least 2x what they get currently - and that should be tax free as well.

and if anyone disagrees stop moaning and just stand for Parliament instead!

fj

grizzly1911

bigfreddiel wrote: »

some mps are well underpaid and deserve at least 2x what they get currently,

I don't dispute that some are underpaid. I would also suggest that some don't deserve it , some are just in safe seats and peddling their way through.

Many don't have a broad knowledge of society or business in general and have got their by privilege alone.

The trouble is if we introduced some form of performance bonus they would gorge themselves as per the expenses.

It is no different at local level either.

kevin52

If we had proportional representation in multi member constituency open list system voters would be able to choose their candidate for their preferred party. As easy as 1 2 3, but too hard for the British people to understand.

KMK

They are paid enough. There are also lots of perks which go with a very rewarding and high status job. Why should we have to pay them a fortune to ensure that they are honest?

Their pensions are still index linked to the higher RPI (including all those MPs who resigned/retired at the last election after abusing their expenses), but they have legislated that all public sector pensioners (except themselves) are now linked to the lower CPI .Breathtaking hypocrisy! "All in it together" means nothing.

Devon_Sailor

kevin52 wrote: »

If we had proportional representation in multi member constituency open list system voters would be able to choose their candidate for their preferred party. As easy as 1 2 3, but too hard for the British people to understand.

Kevin,

What could possibly be simpler than the current system? Despite all the hype and misunderstanding caused by the media, every vote cast is for an specific individual candidate. The one you like the most out of the available options for your own constituency. If he gets the most votes, he wins.

Proportional representation and Alternative Voting are both awful undemocratic systems favoured by minority parties to further their own ends. Take for example the PR system in use for Euro elections...the political Parties chosoe the candidates rankings for their list, and you just vote for the party not the individual. Therefore, all voters feels cheesed off because they may like numbers 3 and 4 on the list, but numbers 1 and 2 are the party choices, and they only got enough votes for two seats.

Under AV and PR, everybody loses.....

And i agree with the other sentiments - most of the expenses scandal would never have happened if the salary went up, but perks dropped off. Why not pay them all a basic £100k per year, fully taxable, but remove ALL expenses and allowances, full stop, except those required to hire ONE secretary and ONE junior assisstant/researcher. Furthermore, cut ALL second home/London weighting allowances and build/convert an unused government property into a nice bit 600 room travelodge type dorm set-up. If all they need is a bed, a desk and a place to stay over during the working week, then why should they be able to fund a house that they are not going to be using 3 out of every 7 days, plus holidays and recess periods?

That way there could be NO abuse of housing allowances, and the government could cut drastically the overall bill of parliamentary expenditure.

WHy not do it? Because even though it is an obvious solution to the problem, no politician is willing to step up and do it because of all the vitriolic headlines that would focus on "MP PAY RISES TO £100k" that would spell electoral suicide for the party that implemented the Bill.....

We are therefore cutting our own noses off because there are too many ready and waiting to bemoan more greedy politicians if they try and do the right thing!

D_S

Zelazny

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

What could possibly be simpler than the current system? Despite all the hype and misunderstanding caused by the media, every vote cast is for an specific individual candidate. The one you like the most out of the available options for your own constituency. If he gets the most votes, he wins.

The problem with that is that people don't vote for the individual - they vote for the party. There are large swathes of the populace who always vote for the Tory or Labour candidate (depending largely on where you are in the country). Hence the travesty of "safe seats" and parachuting.

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Proportional representation and Alternative Voting are both awful undemocratic systems favoured by minority parties to further their own ends. Take for example the PR system in use for Euro elections...the political Parties chosoe the candidates rankings for their list, and you just vote for the party not the individual. Therefore, all voters feels cheesed off because they may like numbers 3 and 4 on the list, but numbers 1 and 2 are the party choices, and they only got enough votes for two seats.

Under AV and PR, everybody loses.....

I agree that there is a problem with any system that uses party lists but there is an easy fix. Simply mandate that the list is ordered based on votes received by the candidates. Suppose for example you used PR, but as well as voting for a party, you voted for a candidate. The votes for parties are tallied and seats allocated as at present, but the list is compiled based on who got most votes...

AV on the other hand has other problems, but it also has advantages. There are a few things that we look for in a voting system. One is that the views of the majority are shown. So consider a place where an election is due to be held. Currently there are two parties. For arguments sake, let's call them the red party and the blue party. Let's say that 45% of people prefer the blue party and 55% prefer the red party. That's easy, then - under FPTP, AV or PR, the red party win (although under PR, the 45% of people whose votes mean nothing whatsoever here can be reassured that they will be assessed on a national level and will still help the blue party gain influence overall).

Now, suppose a new party comes along. Let's call them the Yellow party. They have a lot in common with the red party, and so the Red party voters are a little bit split. Now, the blue party still gets 45% of the vote, but the remaining 55% is split between Red and Yellow, so perhaps Red gets 40% and Yellow gets 15%, then under FPTP the blues win. This is where AV comes into it's own, because under AV all the people who vote yellow can say that they want the Red party as their second choice, meaning that the Red party still wins.

In any system of voting, one of the things we like to see is that if in a vote between A and B, A always wins, then introducing an extra party C should not make a difference - if C does not win, then A should still beat B. FPTP fails this test, where AV does not. PR also fails at the local level, but allowance is made such that no vote is wasted on a national level.

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

And i agree with the other sentiments - most of the expenses scandal would never have happened if the salary went up, but perks dropped off. Why not pay them all a basic £100k per year, fully taxable, but remove ALL expenses and allowances, full stop, except those required to hire ONE secretary and ONE junior assisstant/researcher. Furthermore, cut ALL second home/London weighting allowances and build/convert an unused government property into a nice bit 600 room travelodge type dorm set-up. If all they need is a bed, a desk and a place to stay over during the working week, then why should they be able to fund a house that they are not going to be using 3 out of every 7 days, plus holidays and recess periods?

That way there could be NO abuse of housing allowances, and the government could cut drastically the overall bill of parliamentary expenditure.

WHy not do it? Because even though it is an obvious solution to the problem, no politician is willing to step up and do it because of all the vitriolic headlines that would focus on "MP PAY RISES TO £100k" that would spell electoral suicide for the party that implemented the Bill.....

We are therefore cutting our own noses off because there are too many ready and waiting to bemoan more greedy politicians if they try and do the right thing!D_S

That sounds like a great plan to me, and I've argued in favour of similar things before. The only argument against seems to be that the MP's block of flats would be a great terrorist target - but how is that different from the Houses of Parliament now?